From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!mips!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!nuscc!ntuix!eoahmad Tue May 12 15:48:31 EDT 1992
Article 5353 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!mips!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!nuscc!ntuix!eoahmad
>From: eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Quantitative measure of Intelligence
Message-ID: <1992May1.061747.5988@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg>
Date: 1 May 92 06:17:47 GMT
References: <erich.704535714@dehn>
Organization: Nanyang Technological University Singapore
Lines: 98

:    The test proposed by Turing was vague for a specific reason.  The reason
: is of course that people judge whether another person is "smart", "likable",
: etc. by what they percieve about them on several "levels" (if I can get away
: with that term in this context).  Only a small surface part of this is any
: rational systematic probing for many people.  Consider interactions with
: a stranger vs. with those of friends.  A conversation with a stranger
: includes finding points of common reference (among other things), a kind
: of tip-toeing around each other to determine a sort of relative dominance,
: comparative social skills, etc.  OK, I get the image of two dogs warily
: sniffing each other out ;-).  With a friend, many conversations include
: bits and peices of very well-established patterns, rituals if you will,
: which form a kind of comfortable environment.  Even people who seem to be
: doing random things with each other each time are usually in some sense
: following a kind of well-established pattern with each other.
This is because you are looking at meaning(semantics) not only intelligence.
Semantics is just defined by concensus. For Turing's test to be meaningful,
the object under test must be in a carefully defined situations. For example,
to determine the performance of a car, we need to measure specific criteria suchas acceleration in a common platform e.g. 0-60mph time.
: 
:    In his own way Turing made a most brilliant observation in proposing
: the test, since (IMHO) it is a nearly natural (and to some extent
: ubiquitous) function of current human social behavior.
And there is no other way. I am never against Turing test. It is only the
data that this test is trying to gather which needs to be more defined.
: 
:    How can you separate Intelligence from "thoughput", so to speak?  Unless
: we have a way of measuring the brain directly, say via a kind of real-time
: pattern scanning (speaking of non-invasive methods, of course), that
: "throughput" is in a sense all we have.  Sure, knowing a lot about the
: basic structure of a human brain, societal formation pressures, etc.  one
: could in principle determine an exceptional amount about the internal
: minute-to-minute operation (or whatever) of someone's brain.  But how can
: we otherwise judge this?  (okay, I'm begging the question a bit here)  It
: is certainly hard to judge the internal workings from just the outside,
: but sometimes you just don't have any better tools to work with.
You can use Information theory to determine the confidence level of our
measurement. This is called the sampling problem of measurement. This is due
to the lack of access to the object under test. There must be a machine, like
measuring tape, that must allow us full access to the item under test.
For intelligence, we have a computer, where we can actually study the internal
working of its program, and compare it against another computer for calibration
, and humans for actual measurement.
: 
:    A better question to put forward may be to ask if it is even relevant --
: in other then a philisophical sense -- to even be concerned about this fact.
: Turing had a very good point in considering something that could pass the
: test as being for all intensive purposes intelligent since in the end do
: you really need any more?  I mean, if it functions exactly as you'd like
: it to (in this case patterned on aspects of human intellectual behavior),
: what does it matter?  If a "real AI" can compose poems, music, mathematical
: theorems, etc.  as well as many people...  or dare I say, even if it would
: at some point be possible to be better than nearly anybody at these tasks,
: do you need anything more?  Another interesting side-question would be
: if you'd actually *want* something that had an emotional underpinning/
: intentional basis that was identical to a human?  I mean, hey, aren't there
: a bunch of us around already ;-).
: 
:    This seems a vaguely reasonable, but not certain assumption.  The flight-
: path of a fly is much more unpredictable (during the direction-shifts) than
: most humans walking paths would be.  You second statement is not quite
: so warranted, however.  It would be admitted by some that it seems intuitively
: clear that a large brain does a lot more "processing" (whatever that may
: be) than a much smaller brain doing similar tasks, however this is at best
: a gross generalization.  Studies done on human students at mentally intensive
: tasks such as taking tests over topics considered "hard" like physics, etc.
: found that the brain-activity of those very skilled in the area went up
: only slightly when working on those tasks, while the unskilled ones brain-
: activity shot up to enormous levels, and they rarely even completed it
: correctly.  There have been cognitive studies showing that as far as
: can be determined, chess masters, for example, use far *fewer* steps
: when thinking about what moves to make than do ameteurs.  It seems to be
These data actually support my theory. Please give me detail source of these
experiments so that I could quota them.
	These experiments verify my notion that knowledge is different from 
intelligence. The physicists are knowlegeable people so they need not consume
much intelligence resource. Whereas, a less knowledgeable person, would need 
to think more(consume more intelligence resource).
	My "letter" actually predict without any proff that there is a relation
ship between intelligence and energy usage, because the theory treats
intelligence as a resource that needs to be utilised. You may have a large 
capacity for intelligence, but if you do not utilise it then you are stupid.
The experiment had failed to isolate knowledge from intelligence, instead it
only measures the ability to solve problem. The brain activity measurement is
the best indicatior of intelligence usage.
	The chess masters are more knowledgeable than amateurs so they need
less intelligence to solve a problem because intelligence is a function of
the number of steps that you think, again predicted by my theory.

: a function of radically changed perception of the problem more than anything
: else.  I know that with mathematics and such when speaking to a friend who
: is having trouble at it, the number of steps that that person goes through
: is very large, and usually, a tad on the futile side, while I can very
: easily view the problem in such a way as to get almost right to the answer.
: 
Othman bin Ahmad, School of EEE,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 2263.
Internet Email: eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg
Bitnet Email: eoahmad@ntuvax.bitnet


