Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tdatirv!sarima
From: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: What AI is exactly.
Message-ID: <146@tdatirv.UUCP>
Date: 18 Sep 90 21:31:26 GMT
References: <3543@gara.une.oz.au> <3815@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> <35282@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <3851@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM>
Reply-To: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Teradata Corp., Irvine
Lines: 98

In article <3851@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> jim@se-sd (Jim Ruehlin) writes:
>In article <35282@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> dmark@acsu (David Mark) writes:
>>Cats, and other mammals, and birds, and indeed even many invertebrates,
>>DO learn things! ...	
>
>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.  

At a high level this is true, but at a basic neurological level it is not.
Neurons operate the same in humans and in buterflies, and at this level
learnng most certainly does take place in almost all known animals. 

>Perhaps the crux of this problem is the definition of "learning" as
>a purely behavioural one.  IMO, learning is more than just displaying
>certain behaviour.

yes indeed, you seem to be using a very different definition of learning
than most biologists.  As a trained bologist, I would sya that the standard
definition of learning runs something like this:
	A change in neurological responses due to repeated stimulus
	that tends to alter behavior in a way that is responsive to
	changing environmental situations.
[Note this is only an aproximation - I do not have the formal definition handy]
By this definition the example with the buterflies is a *clear* and
*definitive* example of learning.

>Agreed, if you look merely at the behavioural aspects of learning.  Otherwise,
>maybe there's little similarities between the exhibited behaviour in humans
>and cats.

Not just the behavioral similarities, but also the identity of basic
neurological mechanism.  Even if the *cognitive* processes are different
in humans, cats and buterflies, the neuronal mechanisms are still the same.

>>But, by my everyday definition of "intelligence", cats and crows and many
>>other birds and mammals certainly have it.  
>
>How do you tell?  You indicate that there is similar behaviour between
>the butterfly and mammals, but say the butterfly doesn't have intelligence
>while the mammals do.  You may be right, but the question is:  beyond
>behaviour, what differentiates between the intellegence (learning) and
>non-intelligence?

I would distinguish between learning, which is shown by all forms with a
nervous system, and intelligence which involves creative behaviors - the
initiation of new behavior by mechanisms other than simple trail and error.
This includes anticipation, modeling, improvization, recombination of
behavioral primitives & c.  Cats show the latter, as well as learning.
I have never observed un-programmed behavior in any insect, so I doubt
that any insect is particualrly intelligent.

>>Their "intelligence" does not
>>seem to be as elaborate or as developed as ours.  But they do "learn", and 
>>"remember" (experiments with food caching and re-finding in birds; I
>>can find references if you want), and "solve problems" (parrot pulling
>>string"foot over beak" to raise food to its perch), and even "form
>>generalizations".
>
>Is this learning or behaviour designed to acquire food?

It is both!  Just what do you think 'learning' is?  It is a `software' design
to increase adaptability, and thus survival, by allowing behavior to be
modified by past experience.  Learning is *primarily* a behavior designed
to acquire food (and escape predators, and ...).
Indeed in these examples not only do the birds show learning, they show
intelligence.

>
>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.

A good point.  I do not think anyone is claiming *equivalence* in learning
or intelligence, just that it exists to various degrees in many animals.
Intelligence is not an all or none thing, it is a measure of tendency.
Some entities have more of this tendency, some less.  Humans appear to
have an order of magnitude more of it than anything else, but cats still
have more of it than butterflies (and probably more of it than dogs)

>>And finally, is the domain or goal of "Artificial Intelligence" really
>>"Artificial HUMAN Intelligence" ?  
 
>We haven't positively located any other species that is intelligent, so
>we have only ourselves to base creating intelligent systems on.  I'm not
>saying there isn't other intelligent species (to a greater or lesser
>degree than us), just that we haven't identified them yet.

Perhaps by your definitions. But most biologists would disagree.  We know
of many relatively intelligent species, some more so, some less so.  The
porpoise appears to be second only to humans with the chimpanzee in the
same general vicinity.

If you wish to use different definitions of intelligence and learning than
biologists and psychologists, feel free to do so.  But then you should
try to give us a clear specification of *your* definition, so we can talk
the same language.