From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!engcon!ropella Wed Aug 12 16:51:53 EDT 1992
Article 6526 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!engcon!ropella
>From: ropella@engcon.marshall.ltv.com (GEROPELLA)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Defining Intelligence
Message-ID: <982@engcon.marshall.ltv.com>
Date: 30 Jul 92 13:12:54 GMT
Reply-To: ropella@engcon.UUCP (GEROPELLA)
Organization: LTV MEG, Dallas, TX
Lines: 31

In
Article 7026 of comp.ai.philosophy:
>From: jones@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Jones)
states:

A recent poster (I have lost the pointer) says that the way to achieve
A.I. is to *define* "intelligence."  This is a classic mistake. 

Tom


The problem here is in the word "artificial."  I think what you're
claiming is that artificial intelligence should not be regarded
as intelligence.  If this is true, then the definition and development
of ai would not require (and indeed be obfuscated by) a definition
of intelligence.  Whoever named the subject of ai (and I'm sure
someone out there in net-land could tell me) forced upon us a
misnomer.  What I'd recommend is that if an ai expert wants people
to use correct and unambiguous language about his or her science,
then she or he better think up or use a term for his or her 
specialty and then tell people he or she worked on that and not
on ai per se.

In other words, *get rid of the term 'artificial intelligence.'*

But, until that happens, there will be those of us who are 
determined to link ai to intelligence.  And intelligence is a
*very* philosophical subject.

glen e. ropella
ropella@engcon.marshall.ltv.com


