From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael Thu Feb 20 15:20:32 EST 1992
Article 3706 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael
>From: michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar)
Subject: Re: Humongous table-lookup misapprehensions
Message-ID: <1992Feb13.201806.26828@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <1992Feb12.002312.19459@ida.liu.se> <1992Feb12.145716.22305@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992Feb13.073457.16647@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1992 20:18:06 GMT

In article <1992Feb13.073457.16647@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>In article <1992Feb12.145716.22305@ccu.umanitoba.ca> zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:

[re: intelligent-acting table lookup schemes]

>>All I would like to argue is that if it was possible to actually construct
>>such a table (which it is not!) what is your objection to calling it
>>intelligent???
>
> I am not sure what Antun's objection would be; however mine is simple.
>If our intention of understanding intelligence is to understand the
>human mind because the human mind is intelligent; then we must determine
>intelligence within in a human setting.  Since, as you mentioned, such
>a table would not be possible, and since it is thought, unless we be
>dualistic or something, that our minds are not humongous tables then
>why would we want to deem it intelligent?  If intelligence is purported
>to be a human characteristic (an possbily animal, although I have objected
>to this as well before on grounds of possible equivocation) then 
>we can not attribute it to something like a humongous table since the
>table does not exist in our minds.  IN sum, our minds are something
>different than a humongous table.  
>  Of course, one could attempt to redefine intelligence without thinking
>of it as particularly human.  If this be the case, and if we accept
>that such a table is intelligent, and if the research project is founded
>on understanding the mind by means of the table; the look-up table is
>uninteresting because
>all it has done is confirm a particular theory of "intelligence" and
>not a theory of "how-the-mind-works."  
>

But many cognitive scientists see the purpose of their discipline not to
explain *human* intelligence, but intelligence *per se*.  In their
more fantastic moments, some cognitive scientists like to claim that
the principles that cog. sci. uncovers should be applicable to 
*any* intelligent entity, be it human, genius dolphin, Martians, or
computers.  Given this, it doesn't so much matter that the table
lookup doesn't work the way we do.  (You don't rule out planes from
the category of "flying things" merely because they don't flap their
wings like birds.)  It seems to me that some *other* objection is
needed to rule out a table-lookup scheme.  To be honest, I've
yet to see a good one...

- michael



