Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucsd!nosc!crash!ncr-sd!se-sd!jim
From: jim@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Jim Ruehlin, Cognitologist domesticus)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: What AI is exactly.
Message-ID: <3852@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM>
Date: 13 Sep 90 22:38:16 GMT
References: <3543@gara.une.oz.au> <3815@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> <1990Sep10.140437.19913@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu>
Organization: NCR Corporation, Systems Engineering - San Diego
Lines: 44

In article <1990Sep10.140437.19913@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes:
>If by reason you mean use of formal logic, you are probably correct.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean.

>But your definition of learning would seem to be idiosyncratic, perhaps
>confined to a population of 1 (yourself).  I can't think of any

Yes, flames _are_ easier than thinking...

>animal that has been well studied that does not demonstrate some
>ability to learn, even simple worms.  Learning simply means that
>the animal is able to modify its behavior according to its past
>experience with the environment.  

If that's the definition you're using, I agree with you.  But as I've
explained in other postings, I think that to be rigorous with this
question (in terms of AI) requires looking beyond the behaviour displayed.
The "Eliza" program exhibits some intelligent behaviuor - even to the point
of one receptionist telling her boss he couldn't be in the room while
in session with the program - but it's not intelligent.

>Anyone who has observed cats
>recognizes that they do this quite readily.  The abilty to train them
>to perform tricks is not necessarily a good gauge of learning ability.
>The main difference between humans and other animals is the number of
>neurons in the neocortex, which is the programmable part of the brain.

I think that's the area we need to look at now if we talk about learning.

>In addition, what gives you the idea that cats and dolphins don't
>communicate?  Of course they do.  Even ants communicate.  Maybe
>you meant they don't talk or they don't use language.

Yes, that more accurately describes what I ment.  Thanks for the 
clarification.

>Much of human behavior that we consider quite intelligent does not
>involve the use of "reasoning", including language.

I agree, but "reasoning" is a cognitive tool that required intelligence
to develop.  Cats have never developed a cognitive tool.

- Jim Ruehlin