Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!demon!news
From: julian@tiger2.demon.co.uk (Julian Moore)
Subject: Re: Does intelligence require interaction in the world?
Message-ID: <CvoHBF.KI7@demon.co.uk>
X-Posted-From: InterNews 1.0.2b5@tiger2.demon.co.uk
Lines: 40
Sender: -Not-Authenticated-[2968]
Nntp-Posting-Host: tiger2.demon.co.uk
Organization: Domus
References: <27AUG199411281180@envmsa.eas.asu.edu> 
 <33omf6$7ef@mp.cs.niu.edu> <pautler-280894120033@pautler.ils.nwu.edu> 
 <33r6pu$j8t@mp.cs.niu.edu> <dpo.3.2E62AD41@itd.dsto.gov.au>  
 <3473hc$o20@mblisd.macqbl.com.au>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 22:33:14 GMT
Xdisclaimer: No attempt was made to authenticate the sender's name.

In article <3473hc$o20@mblisd.macqbl.com.au>
rpayne@macqbl.com.au (Richard Payne) writes:

> >To be justified in ascribing such characteristics to something, we would need 
> >to be able to observe them. 
> 
> To ascribe intelligence we need to interact, however the question is
> 'does intelligence require interaction in the world?', No. We don't
> need to ascribe intelligence for it to exist.

Humbug!

Firstly, if there is no interaction what is there to discuss, i.e. if
the so-called intelligence has no interaction how can it be observed? 
Methinks this is metaphysics all over again.

Secondly, what is intelligence but the patterning of thought according
to interaction with the world?  Self interaction would (he said
provocatively :) would be a dead end - in terms of entropy there is a
finite amount of information with an isolated system, and the most it
could hope to do would be to re-arrange it.

Thirdly, meaning is determined by common references, and what is
intelligence without semantic content?  No communication, no
intelligence.

Oops - I seem to have argued to the conclusion that there could be no
such thing as a single intelligence, because on its own it has nothing
to communicate with, and hence nothing in common, hence not semantics.

[It is left as an exercise for the reader to expand the above into a
full article or series of article establishing both the poive and the
contra-positive]

Seriously though, if it is not a bootless FAQ, what are we discussing
when we talk about "intelligence"? and something more constructive that
a re-hash of the Turing test would be appreciated.

--
Julian Moore
