From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!mips!munnari.oz.au!uunet!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!bfish Wed Aug 12 16:52:40 EDT 1992
Article 6585 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!mips!munnari.oz.au!uunet!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!bfish
>From: bfish@sequent.com (Brett Fishburne)
Subject: Re: Communication and Intelligence
Message-ID: <1992Aug10.133447.6855@sequent.com>
Followup-To: comp.ai.philosophy
Sender: bfish@sequent.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: sequent.sequent.com
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
References: <1992Aug6.173825.31310@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992Aug6.185819.9079@sequent.com> <1992Aug6.203254.11225@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 92 13:34:47 GMT
Lines: 42

I have to admit that I did not take the proposition that a doorbell communicated
with the ringer when the doorbell was depressed seriously.  My quick attempt
to remove the argument proved fruitless and further examination has led to
further refutation.  This concept still seems counter intuitive to me, so I
need to be clear on a few more details before I am willing to accept the idea.

1)  What is the doorbell communincating to the ringer?  The fact that the door-
bell has been depressed?  This doesn't seem likely as we are arguing that the
ringer is not intelligent, so it can have no recognition of the existence of
the doorbell, much less a concept of depressed and not depressed.  The command
that the ringer should ring?  While this seems more reasonable, I am still
not sure that this is correct.  A short circuit anywhere along the way (not
necessarily at the doorbell) would send the same message, and I think it could
reasonably be argued that in many cases there is no call to have the ringer
ring.  Or, perhaps, this is corrosion communicating to the ringer?  Or, the
wire communicating to the ringer?

2)  In this scenerio, what is _not_ communication?  It seems like I can 
interpret virtually anything that happens anywhere as communication.  If that
is true, is the ensuing definition of communication really a definition?

3)  This is really a followup to the previous question.  Given that 
everything seems to communicate anytime anything happens, why did we specialize
in speech?  Some thoughts of my own:
	a) We didn't.  We use all kinds of communication mediums.
	b) Speech is directionless.  Speech leaves the sender in a sphere
and the receiver need only be within the effective range of the sphere.  Other
means of communication, all seem to involve that the sender and receiver be in
relatively close proximity with a narrow cone of reference.  This has 
exceptions in the proximity issue (smoke signals for example), but not
necessarily in the cone of reference.
	c) Our ears developed the ability to catch distinctions faster then
other parts of our bodies.

4)  How is human communication unique?  How does it reflect (like many other 
things we do) our intelligence?  Is it the ability to communicate a concept
(or abstraction)?  If that is the uniqueness of human communication, then 
isn't a computer already capable of that sort of interaction?

-- Brett
bfish@sequent.com



