Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gatech!
From: @gatech.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Minsky's definition of AI
Message-ID: <1515@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-Nov-85 13:40:46 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.1515
Posted: Mon Nov 25 13:40:46 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Nov-85 20:42:25 EST
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 29

---------------------Reply to mail dated 22-NOV-1985 12:28---------------------

>It is interesting that many people seem to define "intelligence"
>as "what human beings do".  Many times I have heard arguements
>that basically come down to:  "X isn't a human being, therefore
>it isn't intelligent."
>-- 
> 
>David Messer   UUCP:  ...ihnp4!quest!dave
>                      ...ihnp4!encore!vaxine!spark!14!415!sysop
>               FIDO:  14/415 (SYSOP)

I agree that saying human beings are the ultimate definition of intelligence
is a crock.  My question is what is (are) the neccesary functions for
intelligence?

    I feel that for a being to be intelligent it must be able to have some
sort of sensory perception such as sight, hearing or touch.  Also I feel that
the being must have some concept of ego.


     Any comments?


Brian Mahoney

"Thinking is an eternal problem.  
 What is the problem, you ask?
 Man has never done it."