nick@cs.hw.ac.uk (Nick Taylor) (11/29/88)
I have been following the "Can a machine possess and/or display intelligence?" question with some interest (especially since my warning about arguing across hierarchies was largely (but politely) ignored). I was therefore amazed by the recent tirade of abuse directed at Gilbert Cockton by Thomas Maddox. Have I missed some of Gilbert's postings? Surely his innocuous aside on slavery could not have provoked such a reaction all on its own? Now Gordon Banks has added his two-penny worth of drivel. Don't worry though chaps, Britain might not be a big powerful country any more but it IS populated by a people that can remember how to BE big about things and refrain from throwing a fit at the slightest criticism or mickey-taking. I trust that subsequent postings to this newsgroup will demonstrate that the US has its fair share of big people too! Maybe a new newsgroup is called for - talk.littlepeople. Meanwhile, back to the real topic. You will note that, above, I described this debate in terms of possessing AND/OR displaying intelligence. This is because a number of posters have started to discuss the issue of different types of intelligence (echoes of examining different hierarchies on their own merits for those of you that recall my earlier posting). The word THINKS has also been introduced. I would like to suggest that thinking is, by common usage of the term, a very human activity which describes that subset of intelligent processing which is performed by humans (or, at a pinch, animals) and which implicitly excludes machines (and bacteria and plants for that matter!). I would further suggest that unless an intelligent machine could demonstrate THOUGHT in some way, we would be very unlikely to recognise its intelligence. It'll be a tough life being an intelligent machine! In order to convince us that it is intelligent it will have to pretend that it is THINKING, despite the fact that its own brand of intelligence might be greatly superior. Nick Taylor Department of Computer Science JANET : NICK@UK.AC.HW.CS Heriot-Watt University ARPANET : NICK@CS.HW.AC.UK 79 Grassmarket /\ / o __ /_ UUCP : ...!UKC!CS.HW.AC.UK!NICK Edinburgh EH1 2HJ / \ / / / /__) Tel : +44 31 225 6465 Ext. 491 United Kingdom / \/ (_ (___ / \ Fax : +44 31 449 5153
maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) (12/01/88)
In article <2057@brahma.cs.hw.ac.uk nick@cs.hw.ac.uk (Nick Taylor) writes: |I was . . . amazed by |the recent tirade of abuse directed at Gilbert Cockton by Thomas Maddox. |Have I missed some of Gilbert's postings? Surely his innocuous aside on |slavery could not have provoked such a reaction all on its own? Now Gordon |Banks has added his two-penny worth of drivel. Don't worry though chaps, |Britain might not be a big powerful country any more but it IS populated by |a people that can remember how to BE big about things and refrain from |throwing a fit at the slightest criticism or mickey-taking. I trust that |subsequent postings to this newsgroup will demonstrate that the US has its |fair share of big people too! Maybe a new newsgroup is called for - |talk.littlepeople. Or maybe another one called thick.idiots.defending.cockton. Is this an example of what you call being big about things? You refer to Gordon Banks's posting as drivel and mine as a tirade and a fit; you then classify us both as little people. Glad you didn't take offense, you twit.