Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!clyde!ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!mac
From: mac@uvacs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: inscrutable intelligence
Message-ID: <1047@uvacs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 9-Nov-83 19:20:10 EST
Article-I.D.: uvacs.1047
Posted: Wed Nov  9 19:20:10 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 11-Nov-83 06:25:40 EST
Lines: 26



Regarding inscrutability of intelligence [sri-arpa.13363]:

Actually, it's typical that a discipline can't define its basic object of
study.  Ever heard a satisfactory definition of mathematics (it's not just
the consequences of set theory) or philosophy.?  What is physics?

Disciplines are distinguished from each other for historical and
methodological reasons.  When they can define their subject precisely it is
because they have been superseded by the discipline that defines their
terms.

It's usually not important (or possible) to define e.g. intelligence
precisely.  We know it in humans.  This is where the IQ tests run into
trouble.  AI seems to be about behavior in computers that would be called
intelligent in humans.  Whether the machines are or are not intelligent
(or, for that matter, conscious) is of little interest and no import.  In
this I guess I agree with Rorty [sri-arpa.13322].  Rorty is willing to
grant consciousness to thermostats if it's of any help.

(Best definition of formal mathematics I know: "The science where you don't
know what you're talking about or whether what you're saying is true".)

			A. Colvin
			mac@virginia