Xref: utzoo comp.ai:2621 talk.philosophy.misc:1572
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ncar!boulder!tramp!hassell
From: hassell@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Christopher Hassell)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence and Intelligence (and all this fun stuff)
Summary: Forget redefinitions, try using guts *and* logic.
Message-ID: <4714@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 17 Nov 88 10:03:31 GMT
References: <484@soleil.UUCP> <88Nov15.170837est.707@neat.ai.toronto.edu> <17847@glacier.STANFORD.EDU>
Sender: news@boulder.Colorado.EDU
Reply-To: hassell@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Christopher Hassell)
Organization: (Let's see, it's around here somewhere ... )
Lines: 71
Keywords:

Upon jumping into this fray, first I might notice that so much of this
(quite logically so) is the discussion of the meaning of intelligence as 
we try to get it *NOT* related to humans. (We are our own first model it seems.)

I suggest that we cannot approach one that is not embedded with human implica-
tions so it might be a better idea to *somehow* find another word, being that
intelligence is too loaded to formalize.

Here goes the main stuff:
The most ticklish of the issues that confront formalizing intelligence is simply
an observation that we (*humans*) seem innately different from computers 
(*machines*) and we, as with any good guess, seek to support it, being it has 
some apparently solid stuff to support it.

I think this issue boils down to something else : -Determinism-.   The typical
picture and one that I, myself, note causes revulsion is that of us as machines
which seems to imply deterministic and with predictable boundaries (finite),
and ones without ability to modify.  (This is usually the issue in alot of sci-
fi on the subject)

Determinism in humans is always a fun issue, but also a irritatingly difficult
one to REALLY nail down.  In other words, we ain't.  At the nth degree, we
aren't predictable so no one need worry about the limits on their thoughts.
Other issues like seeing the future or the general flow of things [fate!!]
always seem relative to the person believing them and are therefore moot.

The hypothesis that seems to make sense is that, given those noisy neurons
and their interconnections, CHAOS seems to be the logical assumption at 
some level (hopefully a lower one, well for some people |-)

On to more meaningful stuff, other issues are that if we are machines where
can we arrive at conclusions about ourselves and also where do we this knowledge
of the world?  That would seem to come from the fact that any answer lies in a
*complete* definition of the problem.  So given problems we can find answers, 
because the problems have the arbitrary information.  (all of the above 
supposes a closure theorum on information as a substance, it can only be lost
supposedly (the world is full of chaos 'making' more?))  

Given this it seems natural that if we get at *SYMBOLIC* scheme of
 observation we can adapt to learning anything within our grasp, 
(worked out pretty neat huh?) and that includes introspection 
                                           (wierd, but still symbolizible).

------THE LAST POINT-------
The MOST ticklish concept left would now be old hat.
       We started with stuff like believing we didn't have the only nice 
          flat perspective (i.e. heavenly bodies existing, w/round earth)
       The next general milestone was our conceding that we *ain't* at the
           center of our universe either (This one's still going)
       After this was a shocker, we are not separate from animals and the
           `unintelligent' entities we see around us. (Tough one)
    
    The last may be that we can derive the instructions for making an inherently
         large part of what we call in ourselves `human', (`thinking beings')

What this may lead to if the link is proven, is the most fun of all. (ugh)
   if our self-proclaimed `essance' is creatible and finite and we now know the 
      tools are left out that could make another for ourselves ... egad

What, completely defined, would we create once we figure out how to use them????
       (being the notibly imperfect and selfish creatures we are!!)
  
If you've persevered this far through the text, you must either have a flame in
    mind or have fallen asleep thumping the space bar  |^/ zzzzzz

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YES, more mental masturbation for use in your home or office!!
provided by (without responsibility of course!  He was probably possessed at the
             time.  What else could explain it?)          >>>>C>>>H>>>>>
...ncar!boulder!tramp!hassell (and oh so much of it)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------