Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bbn!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!markh From: markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Sound and complete definitions of intelligence. Message-ID: <44@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> Date: 21 Dec 88 22:10:39 GMT References: <7749@klaatu.rutgers.edu> <193600002@trsvax> <5590@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> <5609@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> Sender: news@csd4.milw.wisc.edu Reply-To: markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Lines: 29 In article josh@klaatu.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) makes reference to: Mark Plutowski's challenge: > Back to the subject. Until (intelligence, intuition, etc.) are better > defined, one can be perfectly justified in claiming that they apply to > current computers. Perhaps this is acceptable; if not, then the > definition needs revision, since obviously from one perspective the > application to computers is (although tongue firmly planted in cheek) not > so far-fetched. I'm looking forward to any sound and complete defintions > of: KNOWLEDGE, BELIEF, INTUITION, INDUCTION, > IMAGINATION, INTELLIGENCE. Let's take a stab at it: INDUCTION: Having inductive ability means being able to derive more general facts from less general instances in a reliable (though not infallible) way. INTELLIGENCE: The ability to successfully cope with unexpected problems is the core of intelligence. One could say that the paragon of intelligence lies in being able to program (or teach!) this kind of intelligence. Some people also view intelligence as having a lot of specialized knowledge, but I think the idea that it is nothing more than that is an insult to everyone's intelligence. The other terms are momentarily beyond me.