From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aisb!aisb!aiss Tue Nov 26 12:30:55 EST 1991
Article 1438 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aisb!aisb!aiss
>From: aiss@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Sven Suska)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defs (Intelligence)
Keywords: intelligence
Message-ID: <1991Nov20.161156.4900@aisb.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 20 Nov 91 16:11:56 GMT
References: <1991Nov14.183231.10554@aisb.ed.ac.uk> <1991Nov14.223842.15104@ucunix.san.uc.edu> <1991Nov15.145024.9401@cc.ic.ac.uk> <1991Nov18.182229.3814@aisb.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: news@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Network News Administrator)
Reply-To: aiss@aifh.ed.ac.uk (Sven Suska)
Organization: Dept AI, Edinburgh University, Scotland
Lines: 119


As not one of you has responded to my comments to your definitions,
perhaps someone else would like to express his/her views on some
aspect, so here is a recap:


> What is Intelligence?
> 
> How would you explain what intelligence is to one of your closest
> friends?
> Would be interested to know.
> 

> 
> I would first ask him what kind of intelligence he wanted me to define.
> My most direct answer to your question: I would say it is the 'knowledge of
> information common to those who are DOING the defining.' ...whew! One must be
> careful when saying such things...kind of like sawing off the branch you're
> sitting on....
> -justin    millerjx@ucunix.san.uc.edu
> 
> 

>From: kurt@diku.dk (Kurt M. Alonso)  <1991Nov15.090528.21429@odin.diku.dk>
> Date: 15 Nov 91 09:05:28 GMT
> I would simply refer to the common usage of the term. When we say that 
> person A is more intelligent than person B, we mean either that A
> has been more succesful in solving a Binet IQ test or that, given that
> A and B have similar knowledge in certain domain, A is more likely to 
> solve problems in this same domain than B. Or, resuming, intelligence
> would be the ability of a subject to solve problems to which solution
> he/she/it has not been previously (explicitly or implicitly) exposed.
> 
> In any case I believe we would be required to further qualify our
> application of the term with the problem domain in which our "measurements"
> have taken place.
> 
> Anyway, if this definition is all to simplistic, please tell me so.
> 
> 
> Kurt.
> 

>From: pv@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Varnish)
> An explanation of intelligence would surely entail some criteria for determining
> the relative/absolute intelligence of various agents (human vs human, human vs
> animal). A brief glance at the recent Animal vs Human intelligence discussion
> suggests that this is not a straightforward task. It would seem that a
> description of intelligence is hard to pin down. Less formal, more intuitive,
> definitions are widespread, suggesting we each/all have an underlying concept to
> call upon.
> 
> As with other vague concepts in the mind, the exhibition of a prototype
> or a 'feature-list' is difficult.
> 
> Just as an aside - would the recipient of the exaplanation need to be 'intelligent'
> to fully understand an explanation.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
>From: redgers@sig.ee.ic.ac.uk (Adrian Redgers)
                <1991Nov15.145024.9401@cc.ic.ac.uk>

> millerjx@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Justin W. Miller) defines it directly and 
> self-referentially:
> >..the 'knowledge of information common to those who are DOING the defining.'
> 
> What am I bid for the negative definition in the summary?
> 
> Corollaries:     
>     Artificial Intelligence is a contradiction in terms. [:-(
>     There is less intelligence in the world every year   {:-o   
> 
> Some petrol for the flames:
>     Looks like we have a mind vs. body, free-will vs. causality,
>     meaning vs. syntax problem.  Sound familiar?  I, a dualist, 
>     propose that we each have an iota of Buddha Nature (Intelligence) 
>     sitting in our cerebral cortex, and when we die it goes back into 
>     the cosmic bucket.  
> 
>     Can a machine have Buddha Nature?  Standard answer is Mu 
>     (Japanese for "don't ask").  Either every switch - change of state 
>     with *time* - has a bit of BN, but can't express it until it has 
>     the language facility, or there is a threshold of complexity above 
>     which a set of switches 'wakes up'.
> 
> /*       And, as with Gods and men, the sheep remain inside their pen, 
>                Though many times they've seen the way to leave...     
> Adrian Redgers : redgers@sig.ee.ic.ac.uk : Neural Systems Lab, Elec. Eng.,
> Imperial College, Exhibition Road, London SW7 2BT, UK : (071) 589 5111 x5212 */ 
> 
> 
>From: aiss@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Sven Suska)
> 
> 1. I don't want to know whether machines or monkeys can be intelligent,
> but whether we can define intelligence in a way that allows us 
> to say that Washoe is more intelligent than CRAY42.
>    This seems difficult with the definition 'Intelligence comes
>    down to "Buddha Nature in the cortex"', for either you have it
>    or not. But this was the only EXPLAINING definition so far,
>    may be someone could say more of this weird thing (BN)
>    to make it more substantial (and attackable).
> 2. Is it really necessary to distinguish domains of intelligent
> activity?
>    Even if we could not compare intelligent acts in maths and
>    stock trading, may be there is a way of relating the amount
>    of thinking used.
> 3. Is it possible to pin down what is meant by 'NEW solution'?
>    Does learning algebraic rules increase the intelligence of
>    a pupil or is this just masses of 'solutions implicitely
>    exposed to'?
> 4. Do we have to take into account the fact that many intellectuals
>    seem to be not only intellectually concerned by defs of intelligence?
> 
> Looking forward to reading from you.
>                 Sven Suska 
> 
>


