Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!watdragon!violet!cpshelley
From: cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley)
Subject: Re: Testing Intelligence (Re: Turing Test).
Message-ID: <1990Dec3.192057.9050@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Owner of Many System Processes)
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <4832@gara.une.oz.au> <GREENBA.90Nov30092227@gambia.crd.ge.com> <1990Nov30.180650.26648@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <GREENBA.90Nov30154938@gambia.crd.ge.com> <1990Dec1.020816.1372@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <GREENBA.90Dec3091624@gambia.crd.ge.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 19:20:57 GMT
Lines: 82

In article <GREENBA.90Dec3091624@gambia.crd.ge.com> greenba@gambia.crd.ge.com (ben a green) writes:
>
>The story up to last week:
>
>Philip Nettleton recently posted a summary of what he thinks this
>newsgroup regards as requirements on a system for it to be classified 
>as intelligent. In brief,
>
>a) The system must be able to learn from experience.
>b) The system must be autonomous, independent of any operator.
>c) The system must be able to reason.
>d) The system must be able to develop self awareness.
>
>I responded with the remark that items c and d would tend to rule
>out the system _felinus domesticus_ as intelligent, since the items
>would require language and cats don't have it.
>
[...]

>My point, exactly. No, I don't think language performance is the only
>real measure of intelligence. I would say that cats ARE intelligent.
>That is why I objected to items c and d. 
>
>But that doesn't mean that cats REASON.  This subject is hard to
>discuss because there is no accepted vocabulary of technical terms to
>use. I guess I base my definition of reasoning on experience with
>logic and mathematics, which are based on manipulation of symbols in
>the manner of languages.
>

Then this is where we differ.  The limitation of the terms "reason" and
"self awareness" to _homo sapiens_ I find too anthropomorphic.  It 
implies a very sharp dividing line between our abilites and those of
of other (somewhat) intelligent animals which I don't see justified.
However, as you point out, we may be just arguing over terminology.

[...]

>
>Again, I don't think that intelligence requires language, but I do
>think that we could not learn self awareness without language --
>certainly not easily. 

I think alot hangs by that qualification, which I don't recall from
your previous posting.  It is possible to learn a division between
oneself and the world by observing that one can will one's limbs
to move (and it usually works), but that one cannot simply
will external objects to move and have any effect.  Certainly language,
in tandem with culture, are much more powerful ways to form a concept
of place and separation, but they are not exclusive.  The first
method I gave here is available to cats and many other organisms with
sufficient intelligence to make the observation I talked about.

>(This is why I question the inclusion of item d
>of Nettleton's summary.)  

You should concurrently consider questioning your reading of what item d
means.  I think it is correct if the terminology is understood as being
more general than just referring to humans.

>For a complete statement of the argument,
>see the paper "Behaviorism at Fifty" by B.F. Skinner. It originally
>appeared in Science magazine in the middle '60s. It was reprinted in
>_Behaviorism and Phenomenology_, edited by T. Swann and in one of
>Skinner's later books, and most recently in _The Behavioral and Brain
>Sciences_, Vol.  7, Number 4, pp. 615-620 (1984) with peer commentary.
>
>It is ironic that most readers of this newsgroup will likely think that
>B.F. Skinner denies the existence of consciousness, while in truth, he
>has made IMHO the greatest contribution to its understanding. Skinner
>has been the victim of the big lie for many decades now.
>

You seems to finish your postings with some sinister allusion which
remains unqualified.  Exactly what "big lie" do have in mind?  Who
has benefitted from it?

--
      Cameron Shelley        | "Logic, n.  The art of thinking and reasoning
cpshelley@violet.waterloo.edu|  in strict accordance with the limitations and
    Davis Centre Rm 2136     |  incapacities of the human misunderstanding..."
 Phone (519) 885-1211 x3390  |				Ambrose Bierce
