Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cs.utexas.edu!berleant
From: berleant@cs.utexas.edu (Dan Berleant)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Limits of AI
Keywords: Intelligence
Message-ID: <3833@cs.utexas.edu>
Date: 4 Nov 88 23:24:20 GMT
References: <1651@ndsuvax.UUCP> <1666@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> <3802@cs.utexas.edu> <2413@cs.Buffalo.EDU>
Sender: news@cs.utexas.edu
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 31

In article <2413@cs.Buffalo.EDU> lammens@sunybcs.UUCP (Johan Lammens) writes:
>In article <3802@cs.utexas.edu> berleant@cs.utexas.edu (Dan Berleant) writes:
>>If we can create a machine more intelligent than we, there is
>>real science fiction in pursuing the implications -- it means
>>we can then create a machine of infinite intelligence! Think
>>about it...
>>
>No we can't. At least, this inductive reasoning does not hold (which
>does not mean the conclusion is invalid): by the same reasoning one
>could "prove" that we can build machines of infinite strength,
>precision, size, whatever.
>JL.

Yes it does! First of all, we can build machines of maximum (or
close to maximum) strength, precision, size, etc., and to do it
requires other, lesser, machines.

Second of all, I define intelligence as "the ability to build
intelligent machines" (but see footnote 1).

Dan Berleant
berleant@cs.utexas.edu

footnote 1: A _reasonable_ definition of intelligence that _also_ 
works for the argument above is this:

Intelligence consists of 2 things, 1)the ability to convince the
average person that intelligence is being displayed (which I 
define to have the value of either true or false), and 2)the
ability to build intelligent machines. This definition makes
sense and avoids circularity.