Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!oliveb!ames!xanth!nic.MR.NET!umn-cs!bungia!orbit!pnet51!philo
From: philo@pnet51.cts.com (Scott Burke)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Adaptive vs. intelligent (was Re: "Intelligence")
Message-ID: <871@orbit.UUCP>
Date: 14 Jun 89 13:45:47 GMT
Sender: root@orbit.UUCP
Organization: People-Net [pnet51], Minneapolis, MN.
Lines: 60

>>I ask whether the system of evolution, that is, 
>>the origin of species by variation and natural selection, is
>>intelligent.  I claim that there is a sense in which it is.  
>
>   Evolution may be intelligent, by some definitions of
>   the term.  But, it is not a lifeform, it is not embodied 
>   within a living thing, 'it' is a process larger than all of us.
 
   Must intelligence be embodied in a "lifeform"?  This objection seems
aimed strictly at denying us applying the term to any but organic systems
which display intelligence.  Why is it any more valid to apply the term to an
organic system, than to an inorganic one, or one composed of discrete organic
entities?  There is no real reason, other than that it provides an artificial
cutoff for political purpose.  In Douglas Hofstadter's book, there is mention
of a gedanken which exposes this particular bias:
   Suppose that we have the capability to duplicate the structure and exact
function of individual neurons with a mechanical/silicon device, and we go
about replacing the neurons in a man's brain one by one.  At what point does it
cease to possess the necessary qualities for thinking?  (Or in this case
"intelligence")
   It would seem logical to conclude that the system of devices would be every
bit as "intelligent" as the original "brain" which was in the lifeform -- and
if the silicon replaced brain could be extracted from the organism, it would
function as an independently intelligent non-lifeform.
   Denying a system -- any system -- the description of "intelligent" on the
basis of its form (organic, discrete organic units, or silicon) has little or
no logical* basis.  Without knowing what it is ABOUT ORGANIC LIFEFORMS that
makes there "mind behavior" intelligent, it is senseless to presume that those
qualities are not inherent in other systems simply because we are not
accustomed to ascribing the trait to them (ie. evolution).
   What this objection ultimately reduces to is saying that a machine can't be
intelligent "by virtue of it being a machine", and not because it doesn't
display the requisite characteristics.  It is the requisite characteristics
which matter -- not the form.
 
>   The changes due to evolution may only be called
>   "adaptation" since the plasticity of such changes
>   is over generations, not within one lifetime.
>   I would limit "intelligence" in living things to those
 
   Again, the question arises, is it a logical necessity that intelligence
perform according to some arbitrary specification (ie. "as fast as humans
can") in order for it to be intelligence?  If we were to slow a man's brain
down such that it's neurons interacted at half their normal speed (but in all
other respects functioned the same), would there be any reason to deny that he
was still thinking/intelligent?  What if you halved that speed again?  And
again?  At what point does he cease to be intelligent?  In short, the function
of the system is still the same; if we are to deny intelligence on the basis
of non-functional criterion, we must show some logical necessity between the
criterion and the function (intelligence/thinking).  
   Perhaps there is a logically necessary reason why the functional quality
intelligence is displayed by systems having the specific characteristics of
being lifeforms, or being "as fast as lifeforms", but if there is, it is not
obvious.  It is a part of the question of AI and philosophy/psychology to
determine the real answers to these questions, rather than simply declaring
them to be self evident truths and be done with it.

UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!philo
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!philo@nosc.mil
INET: philo@pnet51.cts.com