Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!dsl.pitt.edu!dsl.pitt.edu!geb
From: geb@dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: What AI is exactly.
Message-ID: <1990Sep14.171318.16469@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu>
Date: 14 Sep 90 17:13:18 GMT
References: <3543@gara.une.oz.au> <3815@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> <35282@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <3851@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM>
Sender: news@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Usenet News System)
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 17

In article <3851@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> jim@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Jim Ruehlin, Cognitologist domesticus) writes:

>
>Good question!  Looking inside the "black box" called "learning organism",
>are there low-level cognitive similarities?  Or even high-level ones?
>I doubt it - humans and butterflys are very different.  
>
But humans and monkeys aren't.  Same basic hardware, you know.
Cats aren't that different either.
>
>Agreed.  My intention here was to ask if they display "intelligent" 
>communication.  Since we haven't detected them talking about 
>epistimology and metaphysics we can't know for sure that these communications
>are much more than evolved actions.
>
My goodness, by your definition 99% of all humans aren't intelligent!
How many of them talk about epistemology or metaphysics?