From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!crdgw1!ge-dab!puma.ATL.GE.COM!ljones Wed Aug 12 16:51:55 EDT 1992
Article 6529 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!crdgw1!ge-dab!puma.ATL.GE.COM!ljones
>From: ljones@andrew.ATL.GE.COM (LeRoy E Jones)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Memory and store/retrieve.
Message-ID: <1992Jul30.173346.3371@puma.ATL.GE.COM>
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:33:46 GMT
References: <1992Jul28.194953.7337@puma.ATL.GE.COM> <1992Jul29.165648.1525@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992Jul29.225334.750@dirac.physics.sunysb.edu>
Sender: news@puma.ATL.GE.COM (USENET News System)
Organization: GE Aerospace, Advanced Technology Labs
Lines: 25

In article <1992Jul29.225334.750@dirac.physics.sunysb.edu> charles@dirac.physics.sunysb.edu (Charles Ofria) writes:
>I think that the main problem we are suffering from here with determining if
>memory and store/retrieve is required for intelligence is our definitions of
>these terms.

I agree. There seems to be a terminology problem, or at least a degree of
strictness problem.


>When I suggested that commmunication was not needed, Neil immediately pointed
>out all the minor communications of neurons and such in the human mind.  This
>form of communication is certainly needed, but I think we suffered from the
>same problem there with differing ideas of what we meant by communication.  I
>think if we are going to be so general in one, we need to be equally general
>all around in this definition.

OK, so what type of communication are you refering to? Like I said in a
previous post, intelligence which has no impact on the world is pretty useless,
and impact on the world can be called communication (through word or deed).



	-- Lee

Internet: ljones@fergie.dnet.ge.com


