Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!ucsd!sdcsvax!beowulf!pluto
From: pluto@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Mark E. P. Plutowski)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: "Intelligence"
Summary: Artificial What?
Keywords: provocation
Message-ID: <6585@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu>
Date: 5 Jun 89 17:23:07 GMT
References: <952@maestro.htsa.aha.nl> <1130@cbnewsh.ATT.COM>
Sender: nobody@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu
Reply-To: pluto@beowulf.UCSD.EDU (Mark E. P. Plutowski)
Organization: EE/CS Dept. U.C. San Diego
Lines: 33

>  Frans van Otten says:

   ....It seems to me that the use of the word "intelligence" is 
   rather subjective, ... it is so hard to define "intelligence".
   ... a definition based on subjective perceptions ... is probably 
   not of much use ........


>  Martin B. Brilliant writes:

 ...The subjectivity seems unavoidable. I see basically two approaches.
 One is to put the subjective part first, and then ... argue and argue 
 over definitions. ... The other approach is to put the objective part 
 first.  [what Turing attempted to do with his test] .........


It seems that 'intelligence' is intended to mean "that which only
intelligent life possesses."  Why try to re-define an intuitive
notion based upon subjective observation?  There is no way
to agree on this.  At least, at this level of analysis.

How about discussing its relation to another intuitive concept 
(learning) that has a well-defined theoretical analog (Valiant, et.al.)

In this spirit, let me ask one question, phrased two ways:
 

	Do you agree that learning is present in all 
	forms of intelligent life we know of?  
	
	To what degree do you agree that learning is 
	a necessary condition of intelligence?