Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!msuinfo!frith!dailey
From: dailey@frith.uucp (Chris Dailey)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: AI - the real problem
Message-ID: <1991Feb8.224451.22780@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
Date: 8 Feb 91 22:44:51 GMT
References: <1416@ucl-cs.uucp>
Sender: news@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu
Organization: Michigan State University
Lines: 28

In article <1416@ucl-cs.uucp> G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk (Gordon Joly) writes:
>
>In article <22951@well.sf.ca.us>, nagle@well.sf.ca.us (John Nagle) says
>
[.. ant -> lizard -> rodent -> primate -> ..]
[.. general purpose human level AI quote  ..]
[.. deleted..]
>I see a discontinuity in the development intelligence, at the point of
>the emergence of homo sapiens. Perhaps there should be a metric of
>intelligence, with rocks and logs (cf Twin Peaks) at 0 and us humans
>at 1.

So what do you do about some form of intelligence that has some
understandings that humans do not, yet lack some of the understandings
that humans do have?  A "metric of intelligence" would have a meaning
that would be biased by the person that thinks up the definition, just
as the early sociological/anthropological classification of peoples
(a scale that went from civilized to barbarians, with the sociologists
and anthropologists being in the civilized category).  Such a definition
or scale could not help but be inherently ego-centric, which would
render the concept almost meaningless.

>Gordon Joly                                       +44 71 387 7050 ext 3716
--
Chris Dailey   dailey@(frith.egr|cps).msu.edu
    __  __  ___       | "A line in the sand." -- The Detroit News
 __/  \/  \/ __:>-    |
 \__/\__/\__/         | "Allein in der sand." -- me