From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!rutgers!psinntp!psinntp!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw Wed Sep 16 21:21:44 EDT 1992
Article 6785 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!rutgers!psinntp!psinntp!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
>From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Don't try to "define" flight
Summary: "indistinguishability" followedy by "weakening" seems pointless
Message-ID: <715493498@sheol.UUCP>
Date: 3 Sep 92 02:42:37 GMT
References: <1992Aug29.143021.8163@Princeton.EDU>
Lines: 25

> From: harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad)
> Intelligence is the thing people and animals have when they do the kinds
> of clever things that we ordinarily think of as requiring intelligence. 
> [...] A nonhuman, non-animal candidate's performance capacities must be
> indistinguishable from ours to justify inferring that they are
> intelligent.  That criterion may be too strong, but, methdologically, it
> can only be weakened AFTER it's been attained [...]

The omitted portions refer to flying.  This is very interesting, since
I claim that humans have NOT yet attained artificial flight.  The
capability of flight is the thing birds, bats, and insects have when
they do the kind of aerial things we ordinarily think of as requiring
flight.  A non-bird, non-bat, non-insect candidate's performance
capacities must be indistinguishable from the natural performance to
justify inferring that they are flying.  That criterion may be too
strong, but methodologically, it can only be weakened AFTER it's been
attained. 

And, since no artificial so-called "flying machine" has really flapped
its wings as the primary method of propulsion, they are all
distinguishable from natural flyers, the criterion has never been
acheived, so it's too soon to weaken it.  So clearly, humans have not
yet attained artificial flight. 
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw


