Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!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: <3874@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM>
Date: 18 Sep 90 01:39:18 GMT
References: <1990Sep10.140437.19913@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu> <3852@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> <1990Sep14.172527.16601@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu>
Organization: NCR Corporation, Systems Engineering - San Diego
Lines: 68

In article <1990Sep14.172527.16601@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes:
>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.

You hardly need to read the newspaper to see the truth of that.  Even those
who've learned to reason usually don't do it as a natural act, even when
not under pressure or strain.
If people were rational, we wouldn't be in much of the mess we as humans
get into.  So I think that lots of people don't (not 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.

Good point.  I appologize for my comment.
As far as being well-defined, they may be in psychology but all my
experience with cognitive science indicates otherwise.  The field is
too new, the research different enough that usually you have to give
a little leeway to definitions.
So here's a quick, informal summary:
	Learning:  An ability to acquire information and apply it
		to a variety of situations and circumstances.  This
		includes applying the information to areas that are
		unrelated to the original domain.
	Intelligence:  The ability to create, modify, and obtain
		cognitive structures/abilities that enhance this same
		ability.
Like all definitions of these words, I know lots of people won't like
them.  I don't debate definitions anymore because it never seems to
get anywhere.  But I'd be happy to talk about what's possible in
your definition of intelligence.

>>>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,

I disagree.  While some humans don't fathom such concepts, I'd say all are
capable of doing so by virtue of being intelligent in the way humans are.

>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.

I agree.  As I said in another posting, I wouldn't rule out that there are
animals out there without some degree of intelligence.  They certainly
have some kind of cognition going on (in mammals, at least).  But it's
pretty much opinion and conjecture until we can generate more quantitative
measurements of intelligence (which would include a solid definition).

- Jim Ruehlin