From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!bfish Wed Aug 12 16:52:33 EDT 1992
Article 6574 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!bfish
>From: bfish@sequent.com (Brett Fishburne)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Communication and Intelligence
Message-ID: <1992Aug6.185819.9079@sequent.com>
Date: 6 Aug 92 18:58:19 GMT
References: <1992Aug4.171443.18771@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992Aug6.153250.28517@sequent.com> <1992Aug6.173825.31310@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Sender: bfish@sequent.com
Followup-To: comp.ai.philosophy
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Lines: 45
Nntp-Posting-Host: sequent.sequent.com

[ Sorry, but the references back and forth are getting unwieldy, so, in
large part I have removed them.  This is a response in general to article 
<1992Aug6.173825.31310@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) ]

>>I find the same amount of intelligence as there is communication -- NONE.
>>Are you making the case that because there is communication, there must be
>>intelligence?  I certainly don't follow.
>
>  Let me quote you:  "I am willing to argue that communication is
>impossible without intelligence".  I gave you an example where
>communication occurs, yet you admit above that there was no intelligence.
>If you don't follow why this is a counter example to your statement,
>then it is your own statement that you don't follow.

I was saying that your example involved niether communication nor intelligence.
I do not consider the electrical completion of a circuit communication in and
of itself and I do not see how it falls into any description of communication 
which you have provided.  

I do believe that the person ringing the door bell
may have successfull communicated his presence to someone inside who 
understands what a door bell means and can hear that it is ringing.  On the
other hand, if no one is inside the house, then I don't believe that the
person on the doorstep has communicated anything (special case of the one-way
communication mentioned below).

>>>>                I make this distinction because communication implies a
>>>>two-way exchange.
>>>
>>>  Most people would consider writing a letter, or sending a telegram,
>>>or broadcasting on radio or television, to be communication, even when
>>>there is no reply.
>>
>>Would they still consider it communication if noone received it?  My argument
>
>  Of course not.  But if your definition of "two-way exchange" is such
>that it includes the case where one person sends, and another receives,
>you are using the term "two-way" in a rather uncommon sense.

Your point is valid and I concede it.  I am willing to consider one-way
exchanges (as you have described them) communication in the case where the
exchange is received and processed.  I apologize for getting so narrow focus
and hope it hasn't detracted from the conversation.

-- Brett


