From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!bfish Wed Aug 12 16:52:43 EDT 1992
Article 6589 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!bfish
>From: bfish@sequent.com (Brett Fishburne)
Subject: Re: Communication and Intelligence
Message-ID: <1992Aug10.163520.12780@sequent.com>
Followup-To: comp.ai.philosophy
Sender: bfish@sequent.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: sequent.sequent.com
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
References: <1992Aug6.203254.11225@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992Aug10.133447.6855@sequent.com> <1992Aug10.150706.24813@reed.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 92 16:35:20 GMT
Lines: 99

Thanks for the insight!  As you would expect however, I still have some 
questions:

In article <1992Aug10.150706.24813@reed.edu> orpheus@reed.edu (P. Hawthorne) writes:
>
>  bfish@sequent.com (Brett Fishburne) writes:
>: 1)  What is the doorbell communincating to the ringer?  
>
>      Electricity?

Yes, yes, but when two people talk on the phone, they are communicating
"electricity", but that is not the issue (I think).  The point is that they
are communicating some kind of information, right?  So what is the 
information being conveyed between the doorbell and ringer.  Alternatively,
is it possible to communicate without passing any information?

>: why did we
>: specialize in speech?
>
>      a) We didn't.  Sure, speech is pretty cool, we do use all kinds of
>communication mediums. My girlfriend is a good example here...
>      Seriously though, you mention above that this model would make
>everything that ever happens a form of communication. I feel that
>whatever happens is information, which can become communication
>only if it is then interpreted.
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^

This is my natural inclination as well.  If that is true, however, how can
something which is not intelligent (like, say, a ringer) interpret some
activity which was generated (I use the term loosly here) by somthing whic
is not intelligent (like, say, a doorbell)?  Or are we taking the position
that it is possible (and resonable) for something which is not intelligent
to interpret something.  Take, for example, the case of a plant (arguably
not intelligent) turning its leaves in the direction of the sun (definitely
not intelligent).  Does it follow that the plant "interpreted" the shade to
mean that the sun was elsewhere?  Or, do we say that the plant detected the
sun where it wasn't previously and adjusts accordingly (actually a study in
adaptation)?  On a side issue, what did the communication?  The sun, the
lack of sun (interesting twist in a non-intelligent communicator), the brick
ledge which blocked the sun...

>: 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?
>
>      Don't restrict yourself to computers here. Why isn't an animal
>capable of that? Why are we so uniquely capable? From what I hear of
>linguistic research with dolphins, they share our basic forms of
>conceptions such as things happening at points in time, etc. but I haven't
>heard anything about any creatures other than humans and machines that can
>deal with numbers.

So is this the key to the uniqueness of human communication -- number theory?
My obsession with computers here is not personal, but topical, the point is
that:

	IF

	I. communication shows intelligence AND 
	II. the only portion of communication truly unique to people is 
	    numbers AND
	III. computers communicate number abstractions

	THEN

	IV. computers are intelligent in the same way people are intelligent

Or, have I got my syllogisms all screwed up?

>      Really, I'm not trying to be coy, but could it be that human
>communication is unique because we have developed it farther by preserving
>an understanding of communication itself as well as specific messages
>across generations? In other words, our human capacity for experience
>as reflected by our collective human civilization.

Excellent point.  To some extent though, animals show this in passing on
hunting techniques, territories, etc.  Of course, carnivores that do that
sort of thing become lean mean hunting machines.  Wait a minute!  Isn't
that what we are after all?...

>	Often, when reflecting on my understanding of technology, I become
>so humbled by the achievements of the past that I suspect we are the
>dominant species on the planet not because of some inherent sophistication,
>but because of the persistance of civilization.

Yeah, I took apart an engine from a VW.  When taking it apart and reassebling
it everything seemed to make sense.  It was hard to think that the parts
wouldn't just fall into place while I was doing the work.  Despite that, twice
(once with the engine completely apart and spread out over the basement floor
and once when the engine was reassembled and running) I sat back and realized
how much intelligence was built into that thing which we kind of take for
granted every time we start out in the morning.  I have to admit I was reminded
once more of the achievement involved in constructing that engine when my
"repair" job only lasted 30,000 miles where the original had lasted 110,000.

Brett
bfish@sequent.com



