Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!greenba From: greenba@gambia.crd.ge.com (ben a green) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: Testing Intelligence (Re: Turing Test). Message-ID: Date: 4 Dec 90 16:27:48 GMT References: <4832@gara.une.oz.au> <1990Nov30.180650.26648@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <1990Dec1.020816.1372@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <1990Dec3 Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com Organization: GE Corporate Research & Development Lines: 72 In-reply-to: cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca's message of 3 Dec 90 19:20:57 GMT In article <1990Dec3.192057.9050@watdragon.waterloo.edu> cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley) writes: In article greenba@gambia.crd.ge.com (ben a green) writes: > >The story up to last week: > >Philip Nettleton recently posted a summary of what he thinks this >newsgroup regards as requirements on a system for it to be classified >as intelligent. In brief, > >a) The system must be able to learn from experience. >b) The system must be autonomous, independent of any operator. >c) The system must be able to reason. >d) The system must be able to develop self awareness. > >I responded with the remark that items c and d would tend to rule >out the system _felinus domesticus_ as intelligent, since the items >would require language and cats don't have it. > [...] >My point, exactly. No, I don't think language performance is the only >real measure of intelligence. I would say that cats ARE intelligent. >That is why I objected to items c and d. > >But that doesn't mean that cats REASON. This subject is hard to >discuss because there is no accepted vocabulary of technical terms to >use. I guess I base my definition of reasoning on experience with >logic and mathematics, which are based on manipulation of symbols in >the manner of languages. Then this is where we differ. The limitation of the terms "reason" and "self awareness" to _homo sapiens_ I find too anthropomorphic. It implies a very sharp dividing line between our abilites and those of of other (somewhat) intelligent animals which I don't see justified. However, as you point out, we may be just arguing over terminology. What I am trying to say, perhaps poorly, is not that reason and self-awareness are by definition limited to humans, but that they require language. Reasoning involves explicit use of language. Self-awareness needs language in its learning. The limitation to humans follows from the fact that only humans have highly developed languages. Maybe Koko (the gorilla) has enough language for both. I hope so. My proposal is, drop requirements c and d. Items a and b are enough. You should concurrently consider questioning your reading of what item d means. I think it is correct if the terminology is understood as being more general than just referring to humans. But I don't read it as referring to just humans. I argue that to develop self awareness requires language, since it is socially learned. The limitation to humans is a conclusion, not a premise. You seems to finish your postings with some sinister allusion which remains unqualified. Exactly what "big lie" do have in mind? Who has benefitted from it? Well, I didn't mean to be sinister, and perhaps "lie" was a bad choice of words. But certainly there are many textbooks that have all behaviorists denying the obvious facts of consciousness. And then there is Chomsky's review of _Verbal Behavior_, which missed the point of the whole book and yet turned many away from Skinner. Nobody much has benefitted, but IMHO those who have been misled have suffered the loss of Skinner's contributions to the understanding of consciousness. -- Ben A. Green, Jr. greenba@crd.ge.com Speaking only for myself, of course.