Xref: utzoo comp.ai:5299 sci.philosophy.tech:1827
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!oliveb!amdahl!kp
From: kp@uts.amdahl.com (Ken Presting)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Thought and Utility
Summary: Decision theory is the essence of intelligence
Keywords: utility, decision theory
Message-ID: <0cTG02uf793w01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
Date: 29 Dec 89 01:49:16 GMT
References: <31821@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Reply-To: kp@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Ken Presting)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 21

In article <4702@itivax.iti.org> dhw@itivax.UUCP (David H. West) writes:
>If I'm trying to choose between nearly-equally-preferred alternatives,
>fluctuations may tip the balance, but IMO the "thought" aspect here
>lies in the ability to evaluate utility reasonably well, not in the 
>ability to evaluate it perfectly.  Internal and external
>fluctuations also affect my ability to carry out my intentions, but that
>doesn't [in itself!] make me unintelligent or non-conscious, just
>not omnipotent.

I couldn't agree with this more.  (I've even tried to get a new thread
started on it :-).

Evaluating a utility function and applying a decision procedure seems to
me to be the formal essence of cognition.  Any system that does this has,
I suggest, the beginnings of intelligence.  Several other qualities are
relevant (use of a public language, self-modification, susceptibility to
argument) to full "personhood", but you have to respect a machine that
knows what it wants and knows how to get it.

There is no reason a finitary system couldn't do this - that's why I
believe in strong AI.