From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!att!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Tue Apr  7 23:23:01 EDT 1992
Article 4797 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!att!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Language as Technology: A Phenomenological Study
Message-ID: <1992Mar29.045831.14523@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
References: <1992Mar26.003003.20515@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Mar27.130652.23929@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> <1992Mar27.231937.14949@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1992 04:58:31 GMT
Lines: 41

In article <1992Mar27.231937.14949@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>
>Intelligence is not wrapped up in language(like first-principle
>theories tracing back to Socrates)  Further, the AI appraoch thinks
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>that if they can reprodcue the theories and the language, they have
>reproduced the intelligence.  I dissent because intelligence is 

 There is no such thing as "the AI approach".  There are many AI
approaches.  The approach you criticize is a reasonable description of one
of these.

>prior to language.  Now, I have maintained that language is dependent on 
>intelligence as a genesis.  However, intelligence does not need language.
>Further, language does not impact intelligence.  (Ie, knowing a theory
>does not make you any smarter; however, being able to understand the
>theory is a function of your intelligence.  A person who knows a theory

  If you can't express the theory, you can't hope to understand it.  And
many theories would be almost impossible to express without language.  You
dismiss language far too lightly.

>I have been using 'thinking'
>in terms of 'reacting,' 'working with,' 'appropriation,' of a creature
>and an environment in a dynamic way.  Intuition is generally beyond that

 This is a strange view of thinking.  Many mechanical contraptions would
meet this description, but I doubt you would consider them to be
thinking.

>A cockroach thinks, interms of appropriation and reacting to its 
>environment, yet it does not appear to have a language.  Further, if

 In that case, I presume an amoeba also thinks, even though it evidently
has no brain.  Your idea of "thinking" needs clarification.

-- 
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
  Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science               <rickert@cs.niu.edu>
  Northern Illinois Univ.
  DeKalb, IL 60115                                   +1-815-753-6940


