From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncrlnk!ciss!rd1632!chenowet Mon Oct 19 16:59:40 EDT 1992
Article 7316 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncrlnk!ciss!rd1632!chenowet
>From: chenowet@rd1632.Dayton.NCR.COM (Steve Chenoweth)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Human intelligence vs. Machine intelligence
Message-ID: <2507@rd1632.Dayton.NCR.COM>
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:04:22 GMT
References: <3071@ucl-cs.uucp>
Reply-To: chenowet@rd1632.Dayton.NCR.com (Steve Chenoweth)
Organization: NCR Technology & Development, Dayton, Ohio
Lines: 42

In article <3071@ucl-cs.uucp> G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk (Gordon Joly) writes:
>Chris Malcolm writes:

> > In article <BvM75v.AEF@eis.calstate.edu> wstein@eis.calstate.edu (William K. Stein) writes:
> > >rob@apache.dtcc.edu (Rob Jarman) writes:
> > 
> > >> I'm looking for information or references on human intelligence vs.
> > >> machine intelligence for a research paper. Could any of you help?
> > 
> > >  Read Penrose's,  "The Emporer's New Mind".  All the rest is nonesense.
> > 
> > In "The Mind's I" by Hofstadter and Dennet you will find many
> > interesting essays on this topic, ...

I tried to find "Emporer" in my dictionary, but it went straight from 
"empoison" to "emporium."  Strangely, many of the other contributions to
this thread have contained basic language problems, too.

Hidden in the tread is an assumption that people are intelligent, or perhaps
that those discussing it are intelligent or at least know intelligence when
they see it.  I'm not so sure, myself.  If you give IQ tests, for example, you
quickly learn it's more of a business than a science.  Only those who do very
well on them or sell them seem convinced of their value.  The "intelligence" we 
have as a result of completing grad school similarly may be dubious, even if it
feels good.  And so on for the rest of the usual formal or informal criteria. 

It's fascinating that computers are better than people at some things, and
that the boundary keeps changing as computer systems improve.  Like others
in AI, I find it useful to explore the remaining territory, to see
what other kinds of problems can be made amenable to machine solutions.
Also, like others, I see value in discovering how humans and machines can work
together, exploiting each other's strengths.  To me, this is more rewarding
than the "us vs. them" issue.

Maybe some of this is what Jarman was looking for in his original question,
though it's also possible he wanted a rehash of Penrose and his detractors.

Is he still there to ask?


-- 
Steve.Chenoweth@Dayton.NCR.com


