Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site hou2g.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!clyde!ihnp4!houxm!hou2g!stekas
From: stekas@hou2g.UUCP (J.STEKAS)
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Re: Rational Psych (and science)
Message-ID: <121@hou2g.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 2-Dec-83 10:57:46 EST
Article-I.D.: hou2g.121
Posted: Fri Dec  2 10:57:46 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Dec-83 02:45:19 EST
References: <2416@ncsu.UUCP>, <518@dciem.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 17

It is true that psychology is not a "science" in the way a physicist
defines "science". Of course, a physicist would be likely to bend
his definition of "science" to exclude psychology.

The situation is very much the same as defining "intelligence".
Social "scientists" keep tightening their definition of intelligence
as required to exclude anything which isn't a human being.  While
AI people now argue over what intelligence is, when an artificial system
is built with the mental ability of a mouse (the biological variety!)
in no time all definitions of intelligence will be bent to include it.

The real significance of a definition is that it clarifies the *direction*
in which things are headed.  Defining "intelligence" in terms of
adaptability and self-consciousness are evidence of a healthy direction
to AI.

                                               Jim