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: <1990Sep14.172527.16601@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu>
Date: 14 Sep 90 17:25:27 GMT
References: <3543@gara.une.oz.au> <3815@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> <1990Sep10.140437.19913@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu> <3852@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM>
Sender: news@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Usenet News System)
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 39

In article <3852@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> jim@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Jim Ruehlin, Cognitologist domesticus) writes:
>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.
>
Then you should recognize that there are many humans that have no idea
of logic and thus under your definition can't reason.

>>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...
>
That wasn't a flame.  I think you are using non-standard definitions
for terms that have a well-defined meaning in psychology and
cognitive science.  When you do that, you are bound to get people
arguing with you because they don't understand what you are really
talking about since they assume the standard definitions.

>>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.
>

Formal logic is a cultural construct that only humans have *sufficient*
intelligence to have developed.  Some humans never can fathom such concepts,
actually.  It is a matter of degree not of kind, in my view.  The
total number of neurons that humans have available for such tasks 
exceeds mightily those available to other species (on this planet, at
least).  Just as some humans are more intelligent than others, some
species are more intelligent than others.  That doesn't mean that
the dumber members of the human race or of the animal kingdom lack
*all* intelligence, does it?  Just so, some AI programs are more
intelligent than others.  None are yet as intelligent (at least in
a general way) as even a dog, let alone a human.  But that isn't
to say with better hardware it won't happen.