Path: news.net.uni-c.dk!howland.erols.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!enews.sgi.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: wtanksle@dolphin.openprojects.net (William Tanksley) 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 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: wtanksley@bigfoot.com Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.6.2 (Linux) Lines: 39 Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 22:59:21 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.11.155.130 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com 984783561 24.11.155.130 (Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:59:21 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:59:21 PST Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Xref: news.net.uni-c.dk comp.ai.neural-nets:67615 comp.lang.apl:29438 comp.lang.awk:17221 comp.lang.beta:12788 comp.lang.cobol:102781 comp.lang.dylan:24211 comp.lang.forth:78646 On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 10:31:05 +0000 (UTC), aph@redhat.invalid wrote: >In comp.lang.forth Jerry Avins wrote: >: 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. Um... I'm not sure. It may be possible to fool someone for long enough; much more importantly, though, Turing's test is terrificly limited to something intelligent or not deliberately trying to act human. It doesn't help for something not trying to act human. Frankly, I'm not interested in a system that could pass the Turing test. I already know how to produce such a system in fairly short order. I'm more interested in systems which fail the Turing test yet are intelligent. >: 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. Okay, ambiguity alert: I like to make a distinction between the 'quality' of intelligence and the 'quantity' of intelligence. Almost everything has a quantity of intelligence; I would roughly define that as the ability to create information (I'll have a completely different and contradictory definition tomorrow). The interesting thing is, I suspect, the quality of intelligence; I suspect, and some agree, that it's not possible to go from crab-intelligence to human-intelligence just by adding quantity. >Andrew. -- -William "Billy" Tanksley