From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn!utcsri!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Tue Jun 23 13:21:19 EDT 1992
Article 6321 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn!utcsri!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: The Turing Test is not a Trick
Message-ID: <1992Jun19.153904.9560@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
References: <491@tdat.teradata.COM> <1992Jun18.164543.42825@spss.com> <502@tdat.teradata.COM>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1992 15:39:04 GMT
Lines: 40

In article <502@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>I can agree with this principle, but I feel that specifying intonation
>per se is too anthropocentric.  How about changing it to something
>more general like 'uses multi-mode communication'.

>|Just to give one example, watching an alien successfully repair its broken 
>|space scooter would give you good prima facie evidence for its intelligence,
>|even if it never uttered a word (besides a photic obscenity or two).
>
>Hmm, maybe, maybe not.  I am not sure that such behavior is not possible
>to a much less 'intelligent' being than a human.  In fact it might even be
>possible to train a chimpanzee to do simple mechanical repairs.

  An interesting contrast.  First you criticize anthropocentrism.  Then
you characterize a chimpanzee as "much less 'intelligent'".  I agree this
is not necessarily a contradiction.  However in many ways chimps seem to
be highly intelligent.  We view them as much less intelligent only because
we place so much weight on linguistic aspects of intelligence.  That is,
our characterization of chimps is already highly anthropocentric.

  Given that we evolved through non-linguistic species, I believe we
will understand our intelligence far better if we concentrate on
understanding the non-linguistic parts of it.  That forms the foundation
on top of which language was constructed.

>Would humor be a universal amoung intelligent beings?  Or is it a particular
>higher primate adaption to dealing with conceptual dissonance?

  Many mammals are capable of being quite playful at times.  Humor of some
sort might be a mammalian characteristic, and not just restricted to
primates.  On the other hand birds do not seem nearly as playful, so
perhaps humor need not be a universal requirement for intelligence.

>How about 'friendship' and 'bonding' processes?  How would these apply

  These may be essential for intelligence to have evolved as it did
in humans, and for intelligence to develop in a human child.  It is not
so clear that they are general requirements for intelligence, though,
rather than artifacts of the way human intelligence evolved.



