Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!helios!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!seismo!uunet!news.larc.nasa.gov!grissom.larc.nasa.gov!kludge
From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: AI - the real problem
Message-ID: <1991Mar1.000125.20427@news.larc.nasa.gov>
Date: 1 Mar 91 00:01:25 GMT
References: <1473@ucl-cs.uucp> <1991Feb28.193218.21879@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> <1991Feb28.204538.21350@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Sender: news@news.larc.nasa.gov (USENET Network News)
Reply-To: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey)
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Lines: 18

In article <1991Feb28.204538.21350@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>In article <1991Feb28.193218.21879@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> dailey@buster.cps.msu.edu (Chris Dailey) writes:
>>
>>How about this:  Human intelligence is the ability to recognize
>>patterns in the environment [in order] to make generalizations and
>>predictions about future events.
>
> Sound OK, providing that you will agree that Pavlov's dog exhibited
>human intelligence.

Actually, I like this definition.  By this definition, Pavlov's dog does
exhibit quite a degree of intelligence, far more than, say, a worm.  But
much less than Dr. Minsky, because it was not able to make as sophisticated
generalizations or as detailed predictions.  A rock or a Turing machine by
this definition would have no intelligence.  As to whether a Turing machine
may be used to simulate a system which is intelligent is a question that
can't yet be answered.
--scott