Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!usc!ucla-cs!uci-ics!zardoz!tgate!ka3ovk!drilex!axiom!linus!mbunix!bwk
From: bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Turing Test and Subject Bias
Summary: The measure of intelligence.
Keywords: Intelligence, Idea, Problem, Thinking
Message-ID: <58050@linus.UUCP>
Date: 29 Jun 89 16:14:32 GMT
References: <3039@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <1174@cbnewsh.ATT.COM>
	<3075@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <56041@linus.UUCP> <8683@venera.isi.edu>
Sender: news@linus.UUCP
Reply-To: bwk@mbunix (Barry Kort)
Organization: IdeaSync, Inc., Chronos, VT
Lines: 72

In article <8683@venera.isi.edu> smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu.UUCP
(Stephen Smoliar) writes:

 > In article <56041@linus.UUCP>  bwk@mbunix (Barry Kort) writes:

 > > In article <3075@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk
 > > (Gilbert Cockton) writes:
 
 > > > It is the idea that intelligence is a definable, measurable
 > > > property  which is a perversion.
 
 > > Perhaps I am a bit perverted, but, when *I* use the word,
 > > "intelligence",I mean "the ability to think and solve problems".
 
 > > I define a "problem" as "an undesired state of affairs for which
 > > an appropriate idea has not yet been generated or agreed upon."
 
 > > I define "idea" as "a possibility for changing the state of affairs."
 
 > > I define "thinking" as "a rational form of information processing
 > > which reduces the entropy or uncertainty of a knowledge base, generates
 > > solutions to outstanding problems, and conceives goal-oriented courses
 > > of action."
 
 > Let us leave aside issues of perversion (and perversity) and go back to
 > Gilbert's original remark.  Note that, whether or not we accept "I define"
 > as constituting a valid definition, Barry has left untouched the word
 > "measurable," which I, for one, find to be a critical part of Gilbert's
 > observation.  Barry, do you wish to comment on how you would work
 > measurement into your criteria?
  
Fair question.  And one to which I have not given much thought. 
Intelligence appears to be a multi-dimensional attribute.  Some
psychologists have identified as many as seven distinct kinds of
intelligence.  So if intelligence is measurable, the measure would
probably have to be given as a vector.  (We already know that
conventional tests of scholastic achievement distinguish verbal
intelligence from mathematical intelligence.) 

But if there is a measure of intelligence, it would have to be based
on ability to consistently solve problems of varying categories and
levels of difficulty and complexity.  In this sense, intelligence is
really measured in terms of achievement, relative to the population.
Some kinds of intelligence, such as artistic creativity, or social
skills are difficult to measure with any degree of precision.

 > Actually, Gilbert's remark is very much in sympathy with what Minsky
 > says about intelligence in THE SOCIETY OF MIND:
 
 > 	A term frequently used to express the myth that some single
 > 	entity or element is responsible for the quality of a person's
 > 	ability to reason.
 
I agree that intellience is not a single entity, but as Minsky suggests,
an agglomeration of interworking subsystems.

 > (Besides, I prefer "myth" to "perversion.")  After all, if you can
 > isolate it as a single entity, then you have a leg up on being able
 > to define or measure it.  (You still may not succeed, of course. 
 > We still don't do a very good job when it comes to defining "chair.")
  
Like "Chair", Intelligence is the name of a fuzzy set.  Candidate
systems have varying degrees of membership in the category of
Intelligent Systems.

 > "For every human problem, there is a neat, plain solution--and it
 > is always wrong."--H. L. Mencken
 
Wasn't it Lao Tse (or maybe Chang Tse) who said, "Think about
right and wrong, and one immediately falls into error."?
 
--Barry Kort