pluto@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Mark E. P. Plutowski) (06/06/89)
> 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?
fransvo@maestro.htsa.aha.nl (Frans van Otten) (06/06/89)
Mark E. P. Plutowski writes: >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? What do you mean with a "neccesary condition" ? Do you mean that learning is needed for obtaining intelligence, or that intelligence requires constant learning ? I think that intelligence is in itself static: it doesn't require learning (remember my much-used example of the intelligent program). But by learning the intelligent being can become more intelligent, whatever that might mean. In this approach, only these question remains (the essential one): what is the minimum intelligence-configuration ? And: How must this be achieved ? By learning or by hardwired bootstrap ? -- Frans van Otten | fransvo@maestro.htsa.aha.nl or Algemene Hogeschool Amsterdam | fransvo@htsa.uucp or Technische en Maritieme Faculteit | [[...!]backbone!]htsa!fransvo
pluto@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Mark E. P. Plutowski) (06/09/89)
To my question-> >> To what degree do you agree that learning is >> a necessary condition of intelligence? Frans van Otten writes: >What do you mean with a "neccesary condition" ? Do you mean that >learning is needed for obtaining intelligence, or that intelligence >requires constant learning ? I think that intelligence is in itself >static: it doesn't require learning (remember my much-used example >of the intelligent program). But by learning the intelligent being >can become more intelligent, whatever that might mean. In this >approach, only these question remains (the essential one): what is >the minimum intelligence-configuration ? And: How must this be >achieved ? By learning or by hardwired bootstrap ? >-- All good points. Let me clarify my position: Intelligence is dynamic. A system that is unable to learn from its mistakes is not intelligent. (A system that is able to learn but chooses not to is just plain pig-headed.) A static architecture would be so easy to fool, (once the limits of its knowledge store are ascertained) most people would point to this as solid evidence that it really does not meet that elusive, as-yet-undefined criteria that forms our intuition of what intelligence is. Now, the question becomes: What is the minimal amount of simultaneous knowledge and learning necessary to qualify for "intelligent behaviour?" Both are necessary since an adaptive system could "learn" very quickly without dsplaying intelligent behaviour, for instance, by forgetting simple basics.