From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rutgers!jvnc.net!nuscc!ntuix!eoahmad Wed Aug 12 16:52:02 EDT 1992
Article 6538 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rutgers!jvnc.net!nuscc!ntuix!eoahmad
>From: eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining Intelligence
Message-ID: <1992Aug1.043453.6538@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg>
Date: 1 Aug 92 04:34:53 GMT
References: <1992Jul24.023513.25326@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Organization: Nanyang Technological University - Singapore
Lines: 63

In article <1992Jul24.023513.25326@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

:   Again, let me clarify further.  I am not disputing that we are capable
: of learning.  I certainly agree that some kind of physical changes take
: place during learning.  It is very reasonably to refer to this as some
: kind of memory system.  So I am not denying the existence of memory.
: I am only claiming that our memory is not the type of system we like to
: believe it is.  That the way in which we learn is such that it would be
: very difficult to characterize it as a storage system, and the way that

Yes you are right. In fact it may be impossible but does it matter, that we
do not understand the exact mechanism of storage/retrieval in human brains?

: we remember is such that it would be very difficult to characterize it
: as a retrieval system.

The retrievel systems has similarities to human memory in that it stores and
retrieves information. Information theory is very exact because it does not
specify how the information looks like, it only defines it as a pattern store.
How the pattern looks like is immaterial. It is an abstract concept but very
exact. I'm not sure if you understand it but I would certainly like to know
why you do not understand.

Identifying the workings of a characteristic is good but it would be even better
if we know the exact theory explaining that characteristic which encompass
universal law.

The example is the problem of flight:

The first problem is defining flight. Is a kite a flying machine? A glider?
One good example is that a bird is certainly a flying machine, it can take of
and land perfectly, it can last for a very long time, travelling thousands  of
miles. Should we define flight as the capablility to fly like a bird?

By that definition, an airplane is not a flying machine because it cannot
do vertical take-off and landing. Only the helicopter can do that but a
helicopter cannot hover.

Isn't it easier to just define flight as the ability to travel in air without
touching the ground, and without any connection to ground(kite).

If we define flight like that then we can measure the flight capability as 
the distance travelled in air without touching the ground.
	Once we settle on a definition, then we can apply the Newtons's and
Fluid(Bernouilli?) laws to explain flight. You notice that once we do that
we are capable of building flying machines that can fly faster and further
than birds.

	The analogy is, once we understand what Intelligence is supposed to
do, then we can apply normal laws to explain its workings. Then apply it to
build machines which can do certain intelligent-looking operations better than
human brains, or certain combinations of those operations.

The definition is only valid as long as we can use it to build machines.
Of course I'm biased, I'm an Engineer.

Any comment would be most appreciated.

--
Othman bin Ahmad, School of EEE,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 2263.
Internet Email: eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg
Bitnet Email: eoahmad@ntuvax.bitnet


