From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!uunet!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!bfish Thu Jul  9 16:20:16 EDT 1992
Article 6398 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!uunet!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!bfish
>From: bfish@sequent.com (Brett Fishburne)
Subject: Defining other intelligence out of existence
Message-ID: <1992Jun30.193051.28317@sequent.com>
Followup-To: comp.ai.philosophy
Summary: Artficial Intelligence vs. Human
Sender: usenet@sequent.com (usenet )
Nntp-Posting-Host: sequent.sequent.com
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 92 19:30:51 GMT
Lines: 31

I have followed all kinds of discussions lately both here and on other
news groups which talk about methods of evaluating artificial
(or just plain non-human) intelligence.  What I have taken away from these
discussions is a clear impression that the philosophical community seems
to be at a loss to define/evaluate intelligence independent of being
human.  This may seem trivial (or obvious), but, IMHO, it is an important
observation which deserves some review.

The Turing Test is an excellent case and point.  The computer is not
considered to be intelligent until it is virtually indistinct from a human.
It seems to me, if you are interested in producing a human, this is a valid
test.  If, however, you are interested in producing *intelligence*, this
might be considered overkill.  

Is it fair to require that for something to be considered intelligent it 
must mimic the _most_ intelligent thing we can think of?  Suppose we applied 
that standard to running.  You can only be a runner if you can run as fast
as a cheetah, oh, and, by the way, you must run on all fours.  I know this
is a ludicrous example, but is it really much worse than what we are asking
of artificial intelligence?

Equally as intersting, why set this standard?  Could it possibly be that
humans can not deal with the possibility that we are not unique in the
universe?  Sounds like a certain stance attributed to most religions, not
philosophical paradigms...

-- Brett
bfish@sequent.com

The opinions expressed are my own, blah, blah, blah...



