Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucsd!sdcsvax!beowulf!pluto
From: pluto@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Mark E. P. Plutowski)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Adaptive vs. intelligent (was Re: "Intelligence")
Summary: Please don't say free will!!  ;-)
Keywords: initiative, learning, adaptation, self-organization
Message-ID: <6654@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu>
Date: 15 Jun 89 18:51:00 GMT
References: <13493@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> <1430@cbnewsh.ATT.COM>
Sender: nobody@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu
Reply-To: pluto@beowulf.UCSD.EDU (Mark E. P. Plutowski)
Organization: EE/CS Dept. U.C. San Diego
Lines: 48

In article <1430@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> mbb@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (martin.b.brilliant) writes:
>From article <13493@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU>, by mv10801@msi-s6 (Jonathan Marshall [Learning Center]):
>> Intelligence is not just the ability to learn or adapt.  I would like
>> ...claim ...intelligent organisms all share 3 fundamental properties:
>> 	1. they can adapt (or learn),
>> 	2. they self-organize, and
>> 	3. they have initiative.
		.
		.
		.
>I would like at this point to hold fast to what I think is progress,
>namely, a general agreement that "intelligent" systems form a subset of
>"adaptive" systems.  That is, "adaptive" is a necessary, but not
>sufficient, condition for "intelligent."
>Of course, all these terms are hard to define.  Initiative is just
>another word for free will, which has been the subject of endless
>discussion here.  Even "adaptive" is going to be hard to define.

	We may be able to avoid the "free will tarpit" by
	sticking to "initiative" or, by substituting 
	another word that more correctly defines the notion
	of having impetus, a purpose, an agenda.  This
	avoids the "free will" question in that something
	could have such a strong motivation to act, that it 
	really has no choice but to perform a narrow range
	of actions -- practically no free will.   Or, it
	might have a strong motivation, yet is able to
	pick and choose, rationally or not, among the choices
	such that it meets the criterion of "free will." 
	In both cases, motivation exists, while free will may
	or may not.  Noting the vigor (and lack of progress)
	in the free will discussion, it is best to avoid using
	the term in our definition.  So long as we agree on
	the need for "a motivation to satisfy goals, needs, 
	and tendencies"  initiative should suffice - what do you think?

	Self-organization was another term M.B.Brilliant wished
	to discuss.  The most concise definition I can think of
	is to describe what it is not: supervised learning.
	That is, purely autonomous learning without need for
	positive or negative examples for training purposes.
	However, it is also commonly used to describe systems which 
	dynamically allocate internal resources in modelling
	the external world - the best example of which is the
	mapping of tactile sensory input onto somatotopographic
	maps - where the mapping of resources is performed 
	purely according to the distribution of occurrences of 
	environmental events, without need for supervision.