Xref: utzoo comp.ai.philosophy:1044 comp.ai:9528
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ckgp!thomas
From: thomas@ckgp.UUCP (Michael Thomas)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai
Subject: The TT && "working definition" of intelligence.
Keywords: intelligance, ai, reasoning
Message-ID: <611@ckgp.UUCP>
Date: 24 Jun 91 20:50:03 GMT
References: <7135@gara.une.oz.au>
Organization: CKGP Assoc. Inc. Birmingham, MI
Lines: 31

> As before, any constructive criticisms will find their way into a
> new version of the definition and flames will be duly ignored.

  This does mean that we can discuss the topic of intelligence--correct?

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 	GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF AN INTELLIGENT SYSTEM.
> 
> a)	The system MUST be able to learn. 
> b)	The system MUST be autonomous. 
> c)	The system MUST be able to reason.
> d)	The system MUST be able to develop self awareness. 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

  This is a very good definition (including the parts I took out...)
  Is/were there other important factors for which the label GENERAL
  did not fall? 

  In response to the TT, what do any of these things have to do with
  the TT or vice-versa? 

  Does anyone see the point of the TT, as the computer being intelligent
  enough to know when the experimenter is trying to foul it and when
  to lie in response to the questions (or come up with a witty response...)

  So we can then all agree that the TT atleast leaves out (doesn't test for)
  atleast two qualities of intelligence [B,D]?
-- 
Thank you,
Michael Thomas
(..uunet!ckgp!thomas)