Xref: utzoo comp.ai:2701 talk.philosophy.misc:1616
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!uflorida!novavax!maddoxt
From: maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence and Intelligence
Message-ID: <819@novavax.UUCP>
Date: 24 Nov 88 19:03:30 GMT
References: <484@soleil.UUCP> <1654@hp-sdd.HP.COM> <1908@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <1791@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU>
Reply-To: maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox)
Organization: Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Lines: 18

In article <1791@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> geb@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes:
>In article <1908@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes:

>>Intelligence arises through socialisation.  

>Why is this a good argument against the possibility of machine intelligence?
>If a large enough neural network could be created, could it also not
>receive socialization a la HAL?

	Not in Cockton's eyes.  He wants to keep the argument focused
on what he calls "socialization" rather than experience, which is the
central issue.  Almost certainly, whatever we mean when we say
intelligence has reference to abilities acquired through interaction
with the universe.  However, if like Cockton you restrict the
possibilities of acquisition of intelligence to social situations,
then you have demonstrated (albeit through circular reasoning) the
impossibility of machine intelligence.  Which is of course the
hobbyhorse he continues to ride.