Path: news.net.uni-c.dk!howland.erols.net!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail From: Jerry Avins Newsgroups: comp.ai.neural-nets,comp.lang.apl,comp.lang.awk,comp.lang.beta,comp.lang.cobol,comp.lang.dylan,comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Einstein's Riddle Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 15:36:38 -0500 Organization: The Hectic Eclectic Lines: 39 Message-ID: <3AB27956.322CD768@ieee.org> References: <3AACB567.A59B8497@Azonic.co.nz> <3AACE6CF.7F05484D@ieee.org> <0W8r6.178$fo5.14165@news.get2net.dk> <3AAD60F3.120F284A@ieee.org> <3AAE371A.2F9F596F@brazee.net> <98m43a$fe2$1@localhost.localdomain> <3AAFB378.AB166E8C@ieee.org> <98q3f1$bid$1@localhost.localdomain> <3AB0DFC6.FC100A64@ieee.org> <98sq19$ton$1@localhost.localdomain> Reply-To: jya@ieee.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVbm6fvxHO6dv5I3tAWZaPwT2b4SWNkIQzBpi23Jxb+ynlre63H++ILT X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Mar 2001 20:36:53 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: news.net.uni-c.dk comp.ai.neural-nets:67611 comp.lang.apl:29433 comp.lang.awk:17217 comp.lang.beta:12785 comp.lang.cobol:102769 comp.lang.dylan:24208 comp.lang.forth:78642 aph@redhat.invalid wrote: > > In comp.lang.forth Jerry Avins wrote: > : Andrew, > > : My point was that I would be ready to label "intelligent" something that > : couldn't pass Turing's test. > > Sure, you could label a teapot intelligent if you wanted but no-one > would have to agree. The magic of Turing's test is that they would > agree. > > : As with most dichotomies, there are cases that make it easy to say > : "This is one" or "This is not", but there are hard cases near the > : border that are difficult to decide. > > But that is not an issue with the problem itself, but with your > personal definition of intelligence. By lowering the bar you create > the dichotomy. > > Andrew. OK, then; lets raise the bar. Consider a machine that recognizes entities and locations that it has encountered before. This entity has "attachments" to certain others of its kind, and acts to promote their welfare. It anticipates certain "dangers" and acts to avoid them and to help "attached" entities to avoid them by communicating with them in some way. It is capable of acquiring new data, and can plan future action to maximize "good" and minimize "danger", despite random environmental variation. With my raised bar, no entity without this arbitrary set of behaviors will be considered intelligent. (I believe that you would find it acceptable to ascribe intelligence to an entity with such a set of behaviors.) A chimpanzee, while it fits that description, couldn't pass Turing's test. Where does that leave us? Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. -----------------------------------------------------------------------