Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!MINSKY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
From: MINSKY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Inscrutable Intelligence
Message-ID: <13362@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 3-Nov-83 23:46:00 EST
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.13362
Posted: Thu Nov  3 23:46:00 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 8-Nov-83 02:48:03 EST
Lines: 18


     One potential reason to make a more precise "definition" of
     intelligence is that such a definition might actually be useful
     in making a program intelligent.  If we could say "do that" to a
     program while pointing to the definition, and if it "did that",
     we would have an intelligent program.  But I am far too
     optimistic.

I think so.  You keep repeating how good it would be to have a good
definition of intelligence and I keep saying it would be as useless as
the biologists' search for the definition of "life".  Evidently
we're talking past each other so it's time to quit.

Last word: my reason for making the argument was that I have seen
absolutely no shred of good ideas in this forum, apparently because of
this definitional orientation.  I admit the possibility that some
good mathematical insight could emerge from such discussions.  But
I am personally sure it won't, in this particular area.