From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!mips!darwin.sura.net!udel!sbcs.sunysb.edu!dirac!charles Wed Aug 12 16:51:56 EDT 1992
Article 6530 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!mips!darwin.sura.net!udel!sbcs.sunysb.edu!dirac!charles
>From: charles@dirac.physics.sunysb.edu (Charles Ofria)
Subject: Communication and Intelligence
Organization: Institute for Theoretical Physics, SUNY at Stony Brook
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 06:19:39 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Jul31.061939.16766@dirac.physics.sunysb.edu>
Lines: 33

Okay - I think that we have to look at both internal and external 
communications and determine their effects on intelligence.

First internal.  It has been shown that in a human mind, various parts
must indeed communicate with each other in order to produce whatever
intelligence we have.  This is unquestionably a needed part of our method
of intelligence.  The question still remains of if something can be
intelligent without this internal communication.  I don't see how the
communication itself adds to the intelligence of something.  The end
ruslt it produces might be intelligence, but if a single unit could
produce this same or similar result, would it not be intelligent?  I see
internal communication simply as something that is used to get learning
and creativity and the other aspects of intelligence accomplished - not
something that should be on a list of requirments for intelligence.

Now that I've repeated the same thought into total redundency in that
last paragraph, lets move onto external communication.  This is far more
interesting.  Although you can clip all the communication abilities from
a person and still have them be intelligent, all that we can really show
to be intelligent must be done through some form of communication.  Our
definition of intelligence is more of one of things that we precieve
intelligent.  If something has no way of indicating to us that it is
intelligent, it might as well not be.  We need comunication in anything
that is designed, or else there is no point in designing it in the
first place.  Therefore even though external communication is not truly
needed per say, I think that it is important enough to include in a
definition.

					--- Charles

PS: Even a turing test will not find those things that are intelligent -
    only those who communicate themselves to be intelligent.  I know
    plenty of people who would fail one.


