From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!princeton!phoenix.Princeton.EDU!harnad Wed Sep 23 16:54:42 EDT 1992
Article 7004 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!princeton!phoenix.Princeton.EDU!harnad
>From: harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Don't try to "define" intelligence (or flight)
Message-ID: <1992Sep21.141208.18029@Princeton.EDU>
Date: 21 Sep 92 14:12:08 GMT
References: <1992Sep5.023018.23734@news.media.mit.edu> <1992Sep6.195000.3465@Princeton.EDU> <716954131@sheol.UUCP>
Sender: news@Princeton.EDU (USENET News System)
Organization: Princeton University
Lines: 19
Originator: news@nimaster
Nntp-Posting-Host: phoenix.princeton.edu

Wayne Throop asks how to distinguish relevant from irrelevant aspects
of performance for the purposes of TTT-indistinguishability. As a first
approximation, get into the region worth discussing: A robot that can
see, hear, manipulate, discriminate, categorize, and discuss the objects
in the world roughly as we can. Then fine-tune it by ignoring differences
like the ones between Wayne and me (both of us being TTT-capable) but
DO look out for gross deficits like a finite area of competence and then
a complete blank or apparent irrationality (symptoms of the frame 
problem), such as TTT-indistinguishable robotic comportment in
Manhattan restaurants, but nowhere else. (In other words, distinguishing
the relevant from the irrelevant once you're in the winner's circle is
trivial rather than a symptom of a grave indeterminacy in the TTT
criterion.)

-- 
Stevan Harnad  Department of Psychology  Princeton University 
& Lab Cognition et Mouvement URA CNRS 1166 Universite d'Aix Marseille II
harnad@clarity.princeton.edu / harnad@pucc.bitnet / srh@flash.bellcore.com 
harnad@learning.siemens.com / harnad@gandalf.rutgers.edu / (609)-921-7771


