Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!nott-cs!ucl-cs!Gordon
From: Gordon@ucl-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Two Points.
Message-ID: <299@ucl-cs.UUCP>
Date: 17 Jun 89 16:26:59 GMT
Sender: @ucl-cs.UUCP
Lines: 31

> Subject: Re: Adaptive vs. intelligent (was Re: "Intelligence")
> Jim Winer ..!lzfme!jwi
>
> Apparently, you think that a system that learns unnecessary (and
> possibly incorrect or un-useful) things is intelligent? What about
> systems (like people on the radical left, right or center) who
> "never stop learning" *incorrect* things? A better definition of an
> intelligent system might be one that can cope with unanticipated
> (or even random) situations.

I agree with the last statement. The politics of left and right has
appeared exactly as above, be it Thatcher & Kinnock or Stallman & Apple,
Should this posting be to talk.politics.theory?

Maybe. The left and the right are both intelligent people. One says
freedom/wealth/choice is growing, the other says that it is diminishing.
They both believe (much of) what they say is the truth. And is it the
truth from where they sit, with statistics prove it.

> Subject: Re: Free will and responsibility.
> Michael Ellis <ellis@chips2.sri.com>
>
> Lots of "ifs" there. First, and least important, is that the brain
> isn't causally determined because of QM + Chaos theory (either one
> in themselves is not sufficient): Brain state n+1 is provably not
> "determined" by brain state n plus sense data. Also notice you
> neglected to mention "output" or "control data".

So how do we stay sane/coherent? What gives us continuity of being?

Gordon.