Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!labrea!rutgers!mit-eddie!bbn!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!ap1i+
From: ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew C. Plotkin)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence and Intelligence
Message-ID: <0XTukNy00Xol41W1Ui@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 15 Nov 88 04:01:29 GMT
References: <484@soleil.UUCP>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon
Lines: 36
In-Reply-To: <484@soleil.UUCP>

/ Definition of Intelligence:
/
/ 1. Know how to solve problems.
/ 2. Know which problems are unsolvable.
/ 3. Know #1, #2, and #3 defines intelligence.
/
/ This is the correct definition of intelligence.  If anyone disagrees, please
/ state so and why.

Well, it seems to somehow miss the point... but I won't argue 'cause I don't
know enough about intelligence. (Does anyone?)

/ If you take into account the unsolvable problems of Turing machines, then this
/ proves Artificial Intelligence is impossible.
/
/ "Artificial Intelligence" is an unsolvable problem.
/
/ Human beings are not machines.
/
/ Human beings are capable of knowing which problems are unsolvable, while
/ machines are not.

Wrong, wrong. I've had enough comp.sci. to have heard the proofs that certain
problems are unsolvable. A notable fact: all those proofs were presented
formally -- that is, the problem "is this (particular) problem Turing-solvable?"
*was* Turing-solvable.

There's also a misconception that humans really *can* solve all those
Turing-insoluble problems. For example, the problem "Will this program always
terminate for all inputs, or might it go into an infinite loop?" That's
definitely Turing-insoluble, but can a human solve it? For *any* program given
to him?

I maintain that a human can be simulated by a Turing machine. Comments?

--Z