Xref: utzoo comp.ai:2646 talk.philosophy.misc:1585
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tektronix!sequent!verdix!mark
From: mark@verdix.com (Mark Lundquist)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence and Intelligence
Message-ID: <122@verdix.verdix.com>
Date: 18 Nov 88 19:04:11 GMT
References: <484@soleil.UUCP>
Sender: netnews@verdix.com
Reply-To: mark@verdix.com (Mark Lundquist)
Organization: Verdix Western Operations; Aloha, OR
Lines: 47

In article <484@soleil.UUCP> peru@soleil.UUCP (Dave Peru) writes:
>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.

OK, I'll bite.

	First of all, in regard to (2), since there is no algorithm for deciding
whether or not an arbitrary problem is solvable, it's hard to see how
anything could posses property (2).
	Also, I don't understand why you include (3).  What claims does it allow
you to make about intelligent agents or intelligent behavior?  What would
you say about a being that possessed (1) and (2) but not (3)?
	Each of (1), (2), and (3) is formulated in terms of 'knowing'.  Just
what do you mean by "knows"?  It seems possible that there is a sense of
'knowing' such that if a being could be truly said to 'know' even one thing
in that sense, that being would be intelligent.
	As for proclaiming the above definition to be "correct", again it's not
clear to me what you mean.  You need to show that your definition is what
people mean (or at least ought to mean) when they use the word
"intelligent".  Your definition certainly doesn't seem to be correct in this
sense.  You might choose to propose this definition as that of some
particular _species_ of intelligence (I don't know why you would; I cofess
that I'm quite unable to imagine what such a species of intelligence would
be like), but I don't think in that case that you would have arrived at any
useable concept of intelligence.
	This leads to my final point, which is that there's a significant
burden-of-proof issue.  Defining things is tricky business.  There are
predicates that we can and do use meaningfully but which don't appear to
have any correct definition.  Such terms are normative rather than
descriptive, and they appear to be most adequately formulated in terms of "what
it isn't" than "what it is" (I personally suspect that "intelligent" is one
of these terms).  When proposing a definition of something, especially a
definition as problematic as this one, a little explaining of how you arrived at
the definition is in order.  You might try to anticipate some of the
difficulties with it, and show why you believe that your definition isn't
specious.  As it is, the definition is little better than

	(4) Prefers pink grapefruit to yellow grapefruit
	(5) Stares mindlessly at toothpicks
	(6) Knows that (4), (5), and (6) constitute intelligence
"This is right and if you don't think so, say why".