Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.cognitive
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!fdn.fr!uunet!in1.uu.net!psinntp!ncrgw2.ncr.com!ncrhub6!daynews!intruder.daytonoh.ncr.com!news
From: David E. Weldon, Ph.D. <David.E.Weldon@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM>
Subject: Re: critical brain mass for intelligence?
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: 149.25.61.42
Message-ID: <D6AG34.2D9@intruder.daytonoh.attgis.com>
Sender: news@intruder.daytonoh.attgis.com (News administrative Login)
Reply-To: David.E.Weldon@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM (WELDOD)
Organization: AT&T Global Info Solutions
X-Newsreader: DiscussIT 2.0.1.2 for MS Windows [AT&T Software Products Division]
References: <3ld2jv$giq@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 04:49:52 GMT
Lines: 61
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:28665 comp.ai.philosophy:26425 sci.cognitive:7109


@==========Gene Levinson, 3/29/95==========
@
@In <796308708.16@cs.york.ac.uk> richard@manor (Richard 
@Clegg) writes: 
@
@>
@>Ilana Jayne Rosenshein (smiles@speedy.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
@>: Could someone suggest a book that talks about brains/neural 
@nets
@>: achieving intelligence after they reach a certain size (x 
@neurons, or
@>: x computers)?  I seem to recall reading a short bit about this 
@somewhere,
@>: but I can't recall where.  Opinions on the subject are welcome 
@as 
@well
@>: (not like I could stop them, in any case *grin*).
@
@How can there possibly be an objective answer to a subjective, 
@fuzzy 
@concept such as "intelligence", or "achieving intelligence". This 
@strikes me as useless mysticism, unless you very carefully define 
@precisely what you mean by "intelligence" and "achieving 
@intelligence" 
@in this context. I don't think this is a particularly fruitful avenue of 
@inquiry, because it is fraught with semantic ambiguities. 
@
@
@Gene Levinson        *I think, therefore I choose*
@
I'm sorry you got "flamed" on your question.  In spite of himself, Gene is
partially right, but there is no excuse for his response.  Most of us don't
qualify our terms adequately in this newsgroup.  I think you need to
distinguish between awareness and intelligence.  All animals, even those
without a nervous system exhibit intelligent behavior.  The ameoba responds
positively to food in its vicinity and makes moves to avoid pain.  These are
intelligent responses.

With respect to awareness, we need to distinguish between awareness in general
and "awareness of self."  Awareness of self is probably what you are referring
to.  Interestingly, one can, behaviorly, define levels of awareness of self. 
To me, mirrors provide a facinating test of this concept.  The problem is that
we, as a scientific community have not come to agreement whether this test is
sufficient or not.  I refer to the fact that humans, are, for the most part,
aware that their image in a mirror is a reflection of themselves.  Cats and
dogs are not; at least initially.  However, with some training, that focuses
on helping them notice that their own movements are reflected in the mirror,
their behavior, with respect to the mirror, changes dramatically.  Space does
not permit an extended description of the behavior change, but it does suggest
some significant level of self-awareness.  Brain size might be related to
this, but in complex ways we don't understand.  For example, Parakeets also
exhibit singular behavior changes when a mirror is placed in their cages; but
their behavior seems to indicate that they don't get it.  That is, they behave
as though the mirror has another bird in it.

Cheers,

Dave W.


