Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cucstud!tfd!uupsi!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: 5 Dec 90 21:24:03 GMT References: <4832@gara.une.oz.au> <309@dcsun21.dataco.UUCP> Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com Organization: GE Corporate Research & Development Lines: 26 In-reply-to: corey@dataco.UUCP's message of 5 Dec 90 14:30:52 GMT In article <309@dcsun21.dataco.UUCP> corey@dataco.UUCP (Shawn Corey) writes: In article greenba@gambia.crd.ge.com (ben a green) writes: [material deleted] >IMHO paragraphs a and b are non-controversial, but paragraphs c and d >would rule out, say, cats, since reasoning and self awareness in any >non-trivial senses require language. Reasoning and self awareness do _NOT_ require language; expression of these (to other beings) require language. Another prime example of "If it ain't human, it ain't intelligent." Not at all. I think cats are quite intelligent, although I don't think they reason or are self-aware. My quarrel is with the definition of intelligence as requiring reasoning and self-awareness. I think it is enough if the organism learns and prospers in a range of different hostile environments. My difference with Shawn is in the meaning of reasoning and in the analysis of what it takes to become self-aware, but I won't repeat what I said in another recent posting. -- Ben A. Green, Jr. greenba@crd.ge.com Speaking only for myself, of course.