Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai,alt.consciousness
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!gatech!swrinde!emory!nntp.msstate.edu!night.primate.wisc.edu!relay!oacs!jlynch
From: "James P. Lynch III" <jlynch@oacs.nswc.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: Thought Question 
In-Reply-To: <1995May7.090345.92343@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> 
X-Sender: jlynch@oacs
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950507141641.1524B-100000@oacs>
Sender: news@relay.nswc.navy.mil
Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren Div.
References: <3dfhkq$gov@news.worldlink.com> <dparker.7.000EE2D3@dunedin.es.co.nz> <1995May7.090345.92343@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 7 May 1995 18:25:50 GMT
Lines: 11
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.alife:3265 comp.ai.philosophy:27720 comp.ai:29629

   Are we being to constrained in our definition of intelligence?  Does 
'intelligence' imply a self-conciousness?  Or would some capability for  
purposeful behavior suffice?  And finally, are we speaking biologically, 
philosophically or theologically, or is there a juxtaposition of these 
paradigms of thought?
   From another angle: what is the *least* intelligent behavior that an 
entity can perform and still be thought of as having 'intelligence.'  (Or 
putting it another way, what is the most intelligent behavior that would 
*not* qualify it's perpetrator as being 'intelligent').
jpl

