Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!grivel!gara!pnettlet
From: pnettlet@gara.une.oz.au (Philip Nettleton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: A Reply to Gordon's Reply.
Message-ID: <7163@gara.une.oz.au>
Date: 26 Jun 91 01:58:32 GMT
References: <1669@ucl-cs.uucp>
Organization: University of New England, Armidale, Australia
Lines: 20

In article <1669@ucl-cs.uucp>, G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk (Gordon Joly) writes:
> 
> Could this thread go into comp.ai.philosophy and die in comp.ai?
> 
> Gordon.

Gordon,

	I agree in principal with the request in relation to most of the
mumbo-jumbo that has been discussed on these topic but the original version
of 'A "working definition" of intelligence' clearly has its place in both
groups (where it was posted). That is unless you believe the "intelligence"
in "artificial intelligence" has nothing to do with real intelligence.
	Perhaps you are even suggesting that a definition of intelligence
is not worthy of consideration by researchers in AI? One wonders whether
you even took the time to read the definition and form you own opinions,
perhaps even adding some more meat to it if you considered it necessary,
with an 'appropriate' reply.

								Philip.