Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!usc!polyslo!sdsu!ucsdhub!sdcsvax!beowulf!pluto
From: pluto@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Mark E. P. Plutowski)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Adaptive vs. intelligent (was Re: "Intelligence")
Keywords: learning
Message-ID: <6660@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu>
Date: 16 Jun 89 18:40:37 GMT
References: <6605@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> <1319@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> <6626@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> <422@edai.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: nobody@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu
Reply-To: pluto@beowulf.UCSD.EDU (Mark E. P. Plutowski)
Organization: EE/CS Dept. U.C. San Diego
Lines: 33


  In article Chris Malcolm writes:
  >In article Mark E. P. Plutowski writes:
  >>   Evolution may be intelligent, by some definitions of
  >>   the term.  But, it is not a lifeform, it is not embodied 
  >>   within a living thing, ...
  >Are you sure about that? It certainly doesn't look like a lifeform,...
  >... But then, if a lifeform lived for millions of
  >years, minimally occupied a whole planet, and had a specious present of
  >thousands of years, for example, it would be pretty hard for us
  >ephemeral hot-heads even to notice it, let alone regard it as a thing of
  >some kind.


I would enjoy a discussion of the Gaia theory (elsewhere),
but the pertinent topic here is a question: Is computation = cognition?

This particular discussion, "Subject: Re: Adaptive vs. intelligent"  
focusses on the role of adaptation.  So far, we have a couple 
constructive suggestions, such as:  

A.	Discuss the scope of a the following criteria
	w.r.t. definitions of intelligence:
	1) adaptation (within its lifetime)  
	2) self-organization 
	3) initiative 

B.	Consider the role of modelling the external environment:
	o Is it a necessary condition of intelligence?
	o If so, does this exclude adaptive processes 
	  which (so far as we know) do not internally model 
	  their external environment (such as evolution) 
	  from meeting the proposed criteria?