From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!tdatirv!sarima Wed Feb 26 12:54:45 EST 1992
Article 4033 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!tdatirv!sarima
>From: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Strong AI and panpsychism
Message-ID: <451@tdatirv.UUCP>
Date: 25 Feb 92 18:10:53 GMT
References: <1992Feb24.211220.6854@oracorp.com>
Reply-To: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Teradata Corp., Irvine
Lines: 18

In article <1992Feb24.211220.6854@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com writes:
|I agree (I think). Physical limitations on available memory or on
|processor speed will force any practical intelligent system to some
|mechanism other than table lookup; ...
| However, to me the efficiency or
|practicality of the program says more about the intelligence of the
|programmer than of the program.

How interesting.  Especially considering that it was *evolution* that
programmed the human brain, at least initially.  (It has now shifted
into a bootstrap mode where it is programming itself - hmm, maybe *that*
is a possible definition of intelligence?)

So is evolution intelligent? Or is it perhaps possible that efficiency
does *not* require intelligence.
-- 
---------------
uunet!tdatirv!sarima				(Stanley Friesen)


