Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!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: <3873@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM>
Date: 18 Sep 90 01:21:58 GMT
References: <3543@gara.une.oz.au> <3815@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> <2992@vela.acs.oakland.edu>
Organization: NCR Corporation, Systems Engineering - San Diego
Lines: 41

In article <2992@vela.acs.oakland.edu> atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Alan T. Terlep) writes:
>In article <3815@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> jim@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Jim Ruehlin, Cognitologist domesticus) writes:
>>We have no indication
>>that human intelligence isn't the only form of intelligence.  Admittedly,
>>our definition (flimsy as it is) doesn't incorporate much beyond what we
>>observe in humans.  But so far, it's the only example we've got. 
>  As a side point, I'd like to say that this is untrue.  In fact, there are
>examples of intelligent behavior in many animals.  The example of the primates
>that speak sign langauge has been proven since one of the researchers walked in
>to being teaching a new chimp sign language only to find that the chimp had
>already learned the signs.  The reason these aren't seen as indications of 
>intelligence is that humans aren't going to give up their special status in the
>world without a fight.

I'll say again, these chimps are passing the Turing test.  They're
displaying intelligent _behaviour_.  Whether they are intelligent or not is
a matter for definition (of what intelligence is) and research of the
mechanism, not the observed behaviour.

While I've got your attention, I'll clarify something else.  It may be
that some of the people responding to my postings on this issue believe
that I don't think animals (specifically mammals) have intelligence - or
more specifically, higher level cognitive capabilities.  I do think that
they might, in fact probably do.  My arguments here are ment to convey
that I think we need to be more rigorous in our definitions about such 
things.  An insect or slug may look like it learns something, but it's
lack of much of a nervous system makes it unlikely.  Obviously, mammals
have much more developed nervous systems, so it's more likely their
behaviour is actually representative of intelligence.  But without a
deeper understanding of how intellgence is implemented (on any system,
not just humans), we might not be able to say for sure.

> (If you want another example, I heard secondhand of a report that claimed that
>pigeons could identify a cup of water with the ocean, signifying abstract 
>thinking.)

I'm not sure I'd ascribe abstract thinking to that.  The two are sufficiently
different to just be separate objects to a bird.


- Jim Ruehlin