Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!haven!wam.umd.edu!reh
From: reh@wam.umd.edu (Richard E. Huddleston)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: My view of intelligence...
Keywords: AI and intelligence
Message-ID: <1991Mar23.213437.3829@wam.umd.edu>
Date: 23 Mar 91 21:34:37 GMT
References: <13577@helios.TAMU.EDU>
Sender: usenet@wam.umd.edu (USENET Posting)
Organization: University of Maryland at College Park
Lines: 45
Nntp-Posting-Host: epsl

In article <13577@helios.TAMU.EDU> rpb0804@venus.tamu.edu writes:
>I dunno about this philosophy about intelligence being inbred or evolving.  I
>personally feel that the brain is a large, organic macrocomputer.  After all,
>it stores data in "chips" (cells) using electrical currents.  It constantly 
>takes in data, processes it, acts on it.  One can never really say that it is 
>idle in the real sense; it is always doing something.  The meta-thought 
>mentioned earlier - it isn't spontaneous, I'd wager.  It was probably a result 
>of a stimulus, whether you consciously realized it or not.  
>
>I think that if a system were created with enough storage capacity to hold all 
>the data it could accumulate through its "senses" (visual, audio, tactile, 
>etc.) and a sufficient algorithm to process the data, reflexes could be 
>conditioned.  Independent actions could result from a "library" of reflexes
>(that's what WE do, after all!).  This would result in an organism as 
>intelligent as the technology supporting it.  It just so happens that we 
>haven't caught up with ourselves yet, hmm?
>
>Another stray thought (or is it really stray?) - Would you consider biological 
>nerve pulses (pulse, no pulse) a form of digital coding and data transfer?  
>That would be a great way to approach the input from the environment...
>
>If I'm a little behind my time in this concept, shut me up!  But I couldn't 
>resist jumping into a good AI philosophical discussion...
>
>Roberto
>RPB0804@TAMVENUS

 
In article <13577@helios.TAMU.EDU> rpb0804@venus.tamu.edu writes:
 
>              Independent actions could result from a "library" of reflexes
>(that's what WE do, after all!).  This would result in an organism as
>intelligent as the technology supporting it.  It just so happens that we
>haven't caught up with ourselves yet, hmm?
 
One question here, I think.  Since evolution is essentially a response to the
environment, and it is therefore impossible for a species to develop past
the point where the environment 'pushes' it, you seem to be implying that
either the theory of evolution is whacked or that evolution has given us
greater capability than we've learned what to do with.  These are quite
different predicates.  Can you clarify what you mean?
 
Thanks,
 
Richard