Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!NUSVM.BITNET!ISSSSM
From: ISSSSM@NUSVM.BITNET (Stephen Smoliar)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: RE: A REPLY TO GORDON'S REPLY
Message-ID: <9106270854.AA15777@lilac.berkeley.edu>
Date: 27 Jun 91 08:54:48 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Lines: 25
X-Unparsable-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 16:52:49 SST

In article <7163@gara.une.oz.au> pnettlet@gara.une.oz.au (Philip Nettleton)
writes:
> Perhaps you are even suggesting that a definition of intelligence
>is not worthy of consideration by researchers in AI?

I'm sure Gordon has an aphorism ready for this one;  but I shall repeat my own
words and reply that a better description would be "a waste of time."  There
has been nothing which has appeared in the arguments on either comp.ai or
comp.ai.philosophy which has supported the case that a definition of
intelligence will contribute to our ability to build (artificial) intelligent
agents.  The question is less appropriate to the arena of scientific argument
and more suited to wherever we like to hang out to get a good drink.

===============================================================================

Stephen W. Smoliar
Institute of Systems Science
National University of Singapore
Heng Mui Keng Terrace, Kent Ridge
SINGAPORE 0511

BITNET:  ISSSSM@NUSVM

"He was of Lord Essex's opinion, 'rather to go an hundred miles to speak with
one wise man, than five miles to see a fair town.'"--Boswell on Johnson