Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!watdragon!violet!cpshelley From: cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley) Subject: Re: Testing Intelligence (Re: Turing Test). Message-ID: <1990Dec1.020816.1372@watdragon.waterloo.edu> Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Owner of Many System Processes) Organization: University of Waterloo References: <4832@gara.une.oz.au> <1990Nov30.180650.26648@watdragon.waterloo.edu> Date: Sat, 1 Dec 90 02:08:16 GMT Lines: 96 In article greenba@gambia.crd.ge.com (ben a green) writes: >In article <1990Nov30.180650.26648@watdragon.waterloo.edu> cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley) writes: > > In article greenba@gambia.crd.ge.com (ben a green) writes: > > > ... > >reasoning and self awareness in any > >non-trivial senses require language. > > > > How do you figure that? Do you mean a mental language? If so, what > do you consider 'mentalese' to be like? > >No, not a mental language. An actual, socially derived language. I don't mean to be dense, although you may think otherwise :>, but I'm not sure what a "socially derived" language is either. Certainly a large component of human language is acquired through social interaction, most of it, but is language performance the only real measure of intelligence? What about innateness? Without a bootstrap, no performance would be possible. >What is reasoning without talking to oneself, or actually writing to >oneself? I give up! :> This is a contentious issue for sure -- do you have an anwser? > We do this all the time when reasoning with tough problems. > Yes, *we* do. But does that establish a necessary condition for *any* form of intelligence? I am assuming that the poster of the summary was directing his comments to intelligence in general, as has been discussed here, and not limiting them to humans. I readily admit that humans are the sole example of that level of intelligence available for study, but we can still attempt to generalize. >Now cats can solve tough problems, but there is no way to classify >their performance as reasoning beyond just the statement that they >solve the problems. When we humans reason, we clearly use language. > These two statements don't produce much of a distinction in my mind. All you've done is use different vocabulary in describing cats' abilities and humans'. How does a person's use of language allow us to say more about them than of the cat if they're given the same 'tough problem' and both succeed, say? Do you also mean that if a person is not using language, that he or she is not reasoning? In other words, I still don't see the line you're trying to draw. >Self awareness is more subtle and perhaps here I am relying on an >unpopular position that self awareness is learned by interacting with >other people. This is not really as strange as it may seem. Haven't >you often heard therapists say that a large part of their task is to >help the client "get in touch with his feelings"? Especially men who >don't talk much about their feelings, or realize that they have them. >The therapy is talking and probing with questions, which requires >language. > I heard of this many times on tv sitcoms and the like, and I still don't see how it shows what you stated earlier. Here, you appear to be associating "self-awareness" (which has a great deal to do with interaction) with 'sensitivity' and I'm forced to ask what this has to do with your contention that intelligence requires what we would recognize as language? I don't think the existence of psycho- therapy is proof of this. >In another context, how do we teach children to be self aware? It >seems natural to me to say that children see colored objects without >necessarily seeing colors, as such, before we teach them to name their >colors. It may seem natural to say it, but it doesn't have much basis that I can see. What justification is there for this? >It is an even greater achievement for them to see that they >are seeing. We ask "Do you see that bird?" (a probing question like >what is described between the therapist and the client) The pressure >of the question in the circumstance leads the child to recognize that, >yes, he is seeing something. > >These are not ideas original with me, but the source is certainly >out of fashion nowadays. Someday ... > > Well, out of fashion or not, could you indicate it? I'm not attempting to deny there's a difference between levels of intelligence, but I am still unsure of what connection you are making between this and having an anthropomorphic existence and language. -- Cameron Shelley | "Logic, n. The art of thinking and reasoning cpshelley@violet.waterloo.edu| in strict accordance with the limitations and Davis Centre Rm 2136 | incapacities of the human misunderstanding..." Phone (519) 885-1211 x3390 | Ambrose Bierce