From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!uunet!engcon!ropella Wed Jul 29 17:15:30 EDT 1992
Article 6520 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!uunet!engcon!ropella
>From: ropella@engcon.marshall.ltv.com (GEROPELLA)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining other intelligence out of existence
Message-ID: <980@engcon.marshall.ltv.com>
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:14:39 GMT
Reply-To: ropella@engcon.UUCP (GEROPELLA)
Organization: LTV MEG, Dallas, TX
Lines: 52

In
Article 7010 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Subject: Re: Defining other intelligence out of existence
Date: 16 Jul 92 15:45:48 GMT,

>From: bfish@sequent.com (Brett Fishburne) writes:

me:>Until then, I suggest you stick with artificial (emulatable, simulatable,
me:>and analyzable) intelligence.  (Which would be communication patterned
me:>after ours.)

I don't follow the intuitive leap that you have made here.  Are you 
suggesting that if something is intelligent, it will communicate in a pattern
which is like ours?  Are you suggesting that if something communicates in a
pattern like ours it is intelligent?  I have put forth the argument that
communication is not *necesarily* a reflection of intelligence.  It may well
be a reflection of *knowledge* which databases clearly show us can exist
without intelligence.

-- Brett

bfish@sequent.com

I'm suggesting that the only possible measure of intelligence (until
we define intelligence) is an aggregate of measures of communication.
These measures will apply to language (a subject in itself), action 
(a whole infinite set of subjects (at least until we find a TOE)), 
reception (which at this point is as undefinable as intelligence), and
who knows what other 'properties.'  

Without defining those three 'properties' of communication I listed just
above, I'd like to ask you why communication is not *nec* a reflection
of intelligence?

Let me start by defining (preliminary, of course, you're always free to 
change or restate the definition) 'communication.'

-that *process* describing the translation of information from an 
originator to the medium of the physical world and from that medium
to a receiver AND the translation of a response from the receiver
being likewise translated back into the medium and back to the
originator.  (e.g. I say "What's up?" and you say, "Not much.")

Of course, given this definition of communication, if communication were
to imply intelligence, then your average modem would be intelligent.
But, one must start somewhere.

glen
ropella@engcon.marshall.ltv.com
-no disclaimer:  but if you try to pin my company with an opinion, they'll
just laugh at you.



