HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: khise@conquest.ksu.ksu.edu (Martin Andrew Shobe)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining Intelligence
Date: 23 Jul 1992 16:27:58 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: conquest.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <Jul23.153959.65076@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, peterson@CS.ColoState.EDU (james peterson) writes:
>In article <2ZmcoB1w164w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu> justin.bbs@cybernet.cse.fau.edu writes:
>>	[stuff deleted]
>>
>>        II. Intelligence is about problem-solving.  We can talk about a 
>>
>>	[more stuff deleted]
>
>
>Solving problems is the easy part.  It is recognizing and choosing problems
>that is the challenge.  
>
>

Isn`t that just another problem?
(And therefore easy? :))

Martin Shobe
>-- 
>james lee peterson				peterson@CS.ColoState.edu
>dept. of computer science                       
>colorado state university		"Some ignorance is invincible."
>ft. collins, colorado  (voice:303/491-7137; fax:303/491-6639)
From: paulking@next.com (Paul King)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining Intelligence
Date: 25 Jul 92 01:39:31 GMT

rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
> justin.bbs@cybernet.cse.fau.edu writes:
> >        I. Intelligence requires a memory storage/retrieval system.
> 
>   Strongly disagree.
> 
>   Certainly humans are capable of learning, and learning implies some
> kind of memory.  But I deny that it is a "storage/retrieval" system.
> Indeed it is my opinion that the often held belief that we have a
> storage/retrieval system is a major stumbling block in understanding
> human cognition.

Could we instead say that "intelligence requires the ability to use
information from past experience to influence behavior"?  We could
then characterize storage/retrieval as a behavior that presupposes
this ability.  We could also note that a storage/retrieval system
is one way among many to implement such an ability.

Paul
Paul_King@next.com

Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:5670 sci.cognitive:223
From: lever@voyager.corp.sgi.com (Karen Lever)
Subject: Free Classes in Tantric Meditation
Followup-To: poster
Originator: root@voyager.corp.sgi.com
Keywords: consciousness, meditation, Enlightenment
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 08:41:22 GMT

Free intensive workshops will be offered in the Bay Area:

Stanford University                       U.C. Berkeley
    Thursday, July 30                         Monday, August 3
    Thursday, August 6                        


Topics include: Meditation, Buddhism, Power, Balance, Wisdom,
Enlightenment, Personal Happiness, Reincarnation, Career Success
and Miracles.  Classes consist of discussion and meditation, 
and are designed for individuals age 29 and under. 

Stanford classes will be held in the Escondido Village Center 
(next to the E.V. office), from 7:30 to 9:30 p.m.

U.C. Berkeley classes will be held in Wheeler Hall, Room 223,
from 7:30 to 9:30 p.m.

Additional classes will be offered in the Bay Area this summer
and fall.  For information, please call 415-995-4721.
From: ljones@andrew.ATL.GE.COM (LeRoy E Jones)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Memory and store/retrieve.
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:33:46 GMT
Organization: GE Aerospace, Advanced Technology Labs

In article <1992Jul29.225334.750@dirac.physics.sunysb.edu> charles@dirac.physics.sunysb.edu (Charles Ofria) writes:
>I think that the main problem we are suffering from here with determining if
>memory and store/retrieve is required for intelligence is our definitions of
>these terms.

I agree. There seems to be a terminology problem, or at least a degree of
strictness problem.


>When I suggested that commmunication was not needed, Neil immediately pointed
>out all the minor communications of neurons and such in the human mind.  This
>form of communication is certainly needed, but I think we suffered from the
>same problem there with differing ideas of what we meant by communication.  I
>think if we are going to be so general in one, we need to be equally general
>all around in this definition.

OK, so what type of communication are you refering to? Like I said in a
previous post, intelligence which has no impact on the world is pretty useless,
and impact on the world can be called communication (through word or deed).



	-- Lee

Internet: ljones@fergie.dnet.ge.com
From: charles@dirac.physics.sunysb.edu (Charles Ofria)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Communication and Intelligence
Date: 31 Jul 92 06:19:39 GMT
Organization: Institute for Theoretical Physics, SUNY at Stony Brook

Okay - I think that we have to look at both internal and external 
communications and determine their effects on intelligence.

First internal.  It has been shown that in a human mind, various parts
must indeed communicate with each other in order to produce whatever
intelligence we have.  This is unquestionably a needed part of our method
of intelligence.  The question still remains of if something can be
intelligent without this internal communication.  I don't see how the
communication itself adds to the intelligence of something.  The end
ruslt it produces might be intelligence, but if a single unit could
produce this same or similar result, would it not be intelligent?  I see
internal communication simply as something that is used to get learning
and creativity and the other aspects of intelligence accomplished - not
something that should be on a list of requirments for intelligence.

Now that I've repeated the same thought into total redundency in that
last paragraph, lets move onto external communication.  This is far more
interesting.  Although you can clip all the communication abilities from
a person and still have them be intelligent, all that we can really show
to be intelligent must be done through some form of communication.  Our
definition of intelligence is more of one of things that we precieve
intelligent.  If something has no way of indicating to us that it is
intelligent, it might as well not be.  We need comunication in anything
that is designed, or else there is no point in designing it in the
first place.  Therefore even though external communication is not truly
needed per say, I think that it is important enough to include in a
definition.

					--- Charles

PS: Even a turing test will not find those things that are intelligent -
    only those who communicate themselves to be intelligent.  I know
    plenty of people who would fail one.
From: bill@nsma.arizona.edu (Bill Skaggs)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining Intelligence
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:39:15 GMT
Organization: ARL Division of Neural Systems, Memory and Aging, University of
	Arizona

rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

   > Intelligence is all about survival.

I hold these truths to be self evident:  trees are very good at
surviving; and trees have no intelligence whatsoever.

	-- Bill

(I could, if necessary, construct a story about a totally paralyzed
man who shows great intelligence in finding a way to commit suicide,
but that would be overkill . . .)
From: peterson@CS.ColoState.EDU (james peterson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining Intelligence
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:39:59 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department

In article <2ZmcoB1w164w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu> justin.bbs@cybernet.cse.fau.edu writes:
>	[stuff deleted]
>
>        II. Intelligence is about problem-solving.  We can talk about a 
>
>	[more stuff deleted]


Solving problems is the easy part.  It is recognizing and choosing problems
that is the challenge.  


-- 
james lee peterson				peterson@CS.ColoState.edu
dept. of computer science                       
colorado state university		"Some ignorance is invincible."
ft. collins, colorado  (voice:303/491-7137; fax:303/491-6639)
From: justin.bbs@cybernet.cse.fau.edu
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining Intelligence
Date: 27 Jul 92 02:37:28 GMT
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton

> 
> Could we instead say that "intelligence requires the ability to use
> information from past experience to influence behavior"?  We could
> then characterize storage/retrieval as a behavior that presupposes
> this ability.  We could also note that a storage/retrieval system
> is one way among many to implement such an ability.
> 
> Paul
> Paul_King@next.com
> 

Hmmm... how can one not equate a device that uses information from the 
past to influence [present] behavior as a storage/retrieval system?

We're not talking about storing oranges in the fridge here.  The 
storage/retrieval system herein discussed is about information.

While a human brain, or any other animal brain, for that matter, might 
not be SOLELY a storage/retrieval device, it is illogical to take the 
position that it does not serve the purpose of a storage/retrieval 
system.  Perhaps it is not as efficient as we would like, but it 
certainly serves this purpose.  At least let us agree on this most basic 
of points.

Justin.
From: khise@conquest.ksu.ksu.edu (Martin Andrew Shobe)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining Intelligence
Date: 23 Jul 1992 16:26:04 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: conquest.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <1992Jul23.151338.28804@mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>In article <2ZmcoB1w164w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu> justin.bbs@cybernet.cse.fau.edu writes:
>>
>>        I. Intelligence requires a memory storage/retrieval system.
>
>  Strongly disagree.
>
>  Certainly humans are capable of learning, and learning implies some
>kind of memory.  But I deny that it is a "storage/retrieval" system.
>Indeed it is my opinion that the often held belief that we have a
>storage/retrieval system is a major stumbling block in understanding
>human cognition.
>

But we do have storage/retrieval systems.  Somehow, I have stored that I was
born on June 13, 1969.  What this has to do with intelligence is a different
story.


>>        II. Intelligence is about problem-solving.
>
>  Strongly disagree.
>
>  Intelligence is all about survival.  For survival, response to stimulus
>is the important feature.  Problem solving certainly helps by greatly
>broadening the variety of possible responses.  But I would prefer to
>say that problem solving ability is a side effect of intelligence, rather
>than a central component.
>

So, all else being equal.  If A is stronger than B, A is more intelligent than B?

>
>>        V. Intelligence is a function of speed.  It's likely we all agree 
>>on this point.
>
>  Can't agree here either.  Speed certainly has utility.  But I don't
>believe it is central.  Certainly speed is an important part of
>intelligence for an animal involved in intense predator/prey relations.
>But if a creature adopts an ecological niche where there are no predators,
>it might be able to adopt a quite sedate life style and still be very
>intelligent.
>

By your definition, wouldn't this creature be very intelligent *because* it found
this lifestyle?

I haven't thought enough about intelligence to actually define it.  But, I believe
that it is independent of size, strength, or physical speed.  All of which are 
important to survival.  Nor do I believe that if I decide that something is more
important than my personal survival, that I am less intelligent.  

Martin Shobe

Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Defining Intelligence
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 23:50:31 GMT

In article <14pnq7INNdjv@conquest.ksu.ksu.edu> khise@conquest.ksu.ksu.edu (Martin Andrew Shobe) writes:
>
>In article <1992Jul24.023513.25326@mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>>  Let me start by saying that I am not arguing for the sake of arguing.

>Actually, we might be quibbling over words.
>Are store/retrieve memories limited to storing and retrieving data by location?

  Of course not.  For example a database organized as a hash table, or
a B-tree, or designed for binary search, or some other such method is
still store/retrieve memory.

>The point of the example was that you could have a store/retrieve memory
>without a *conscious* store or retrieve command.  You showed that there 
>was no conscious store or retrieve command, and then said that it meant there
>was no storage/retrieval memory.

  Well "showed" is rather a strong term.  I would have used the "claimed"
instead.  The word "show" implies some kind of proof.  We would need to
know much more about the workings of the brain before that could become
possible.

  I take it as self evident that there is no conscious store operation.
My other comments were meant to present a small part of the evidence
which persuades me that there is also no unconscious store and no
unconscious retrieve operation.

>                                  I used that example to show that the latter
>does not follow from the former.

  We are obviously talking at cross purposes.  I said nothing about
consciousness except in reply to you.  I frankly don't put much weight
on consciousness.  I am assuming that the unconscious components of
intelligence are far more important than they are usually given credit
for, so the separation into conscious and unconscious is usually
quite misleading.

>                                  I do not believe that it is an accurate
>model of human memory.

  As I said earlier, we will have to agree to disagree.
From: bill@nsma.arizona.edu (Bill Skaggs)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining Intelligence
Date: 24 Jul 92 03:34:34 GMT
	<14n85cINN9vc@conquest.ksu.ksu.edu>
	<1992Jul23.223809.11316@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Organization: ARL Division of Neural Systems, Memory and Aging, University of
	Arizona

rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

   >  I still disagree.  We have some kind of memory.  But that memory
   >does not have a store operation, and does not have a retrieve
   >operation.

This is an open question, actually.  There might be neural mechanisms
that "gate" the modifiability of synapses, so that when one of these
mechanisms is active, the current activity pattern is stored.
Psychologists have called such a thing a "Print Now" mechanism.  There
is some reason to think that norepinephrine does something of this
sort.

There might also be mechanisms that control retrieval.  1) It has been
suggested that the hippocampus works by rythmically blanking out the
existing activity pattern, feeding in a cue, and allowing the cue to
evoke a memorized pattern.  2) In the neocortex, if, as has been
suggested, it works as an attractor neural network, mechanisms that
control the amount of noise in the network will determine whether the
activity pattern can fall into an attractor (which is equivalent to
recalling a memory).

All this is pretty speculative, of course, but in any case I don't
think it's reasonable to be dogmatic about these things.

	-- Bill
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: charles@dirac.physics.sunysb.edu (Charles Ofria)
Subject: Re: Memory and store/retrieve.
Organization: Institute for Theoretical Physics, SUNY at Stony Brook
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:53:34 GMT

I think that the main problem we are suffering from here with determining if
memory and store/retrieve is required for intelligence is our definitions of
these terms.  In his last post Neil mmade it clear that he was talking about
stores that will last and can be retrieved at any point in time.  This is a
very strict definition and indeed is not needed for intelligence.  Some form
of memory certainly is though.  You must at least be able to carry some idea
from one thought to the next - or even from the begining of a thought to the
end - and this IS memory!

When I suggested that commmunication was not needed, Neil immediately pointed
out all the minor communications of neurons and such in the human mind.  This
form of communication is certainly needed, but I think we suffered from the
same problem there with differing ideas of what we meant by communication.  I
think if we are going to be so general in one, we need to be equally general
all around in this definition.

						--- Charles

Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: ropella@engcon.marshall.ltv.com (GEROPELLA)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining other intelligence out of existence
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:14:39 GMT
Reply-To: ropella@engcon.UUCP (GEROPELLA)
Organization: LTV MEG, Dallas, TX

In
Article 7010 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Subject: Re: Defining other intelligence out of existence
Date: 16 Jul 92 15:45:48 GMT,

From: bfish@sequent.com (Brett Fishburne) writes:

me:>Until then, I suggest you stick with artificial (emulatable, simulatable,
me:>and analyzable) intelligence.  (Which would be communication patterned
me:>after ours.)

I don't follow the intuitive leap that you have made here.  Are you 
suggesting that if something is intelligent, it will communicate in a pattern
which is like ours?  Are you suggesting that if something communicates in a
pattern like ours it is intelligent?  I have put forth the argument that
communication is not *necesarily* a reflection of intelligence.  It may well
be a reflection of *knowledge* which databases clearly show us can exist
without intelligence.

-- Brett

bfish@sequent.com

I'm suggesting that the only possible measure of intelligence (until
we define intelligence) is an aggregate of measures of communication.
These measures will apply to language (a subject in itself), action 
(a whole infinite set of subjects (at least until we find a TOE)), 
reception (which at this point is as undefinable as intelligence), and
who knows what other 'properties.'  

Without defining those three 'properties' of communication I listed just
above, I'd like to ask you why communication is not *nec* a reflection
of intelligence?

Let me start by defining (preliminary, of course, you're always free to 
change or restate the definition) 'communication.'

-that *process* describing the translation of information from an 
originator to the medium of the physical world and from that medium
to a receiver AND the translation of a response from the receiver
being likewise translated back into the medium and back to the
originator.  (e.g. I say "What's up?" and you say, "Not much.")

Of course, given this definition of communication, if communication were
to imply intelligence, then your average modem would be intelligent.
But, one must start somewhere.

glen
ropella@engcon.marshall.ltv.com
-no disclaimer:  but if you try to pin my company with an opinion, they'll
just laugh at you.
From: jason@mercury.cs.uregina.ca (Jason Breti)
Subject: Daniel C. Dennet's "Consciousness Explained"    
Reply-To: jason@mercury.uregina.ca
Organization: University of Regina
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 04:33:28 GMT

I'm posting this for a friend...

Has anyone read this book?

If so, what are the most controversial parts?

What are the most intriguing ideas, if any?

Does Dennet's portrait of consciousness agree with Minsky's "Society of
Mind" argument?
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining Intelligence
Date: 23 Jul 92 22:38:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: mp.1992Jul23.223809.11316
Organization: Northern Illinois University

In article <14n85cINN9vc@conquest.ksu.ksu.edu> khise@conquest.ksu.ksu.edu (Martin Andrew Shobe) writes: [criticizing my comments]
>In article <1992Jul23.151338.28804@mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>>In article <2ZmcoB1w164w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu> justin.bbs@cybernet.cse.fau.edu writes:
>>>        I. Intelligence requires a memory storage/retrieval system.
>>
>>  Strongly disagree.

>But we do have storage/retrieval systems.  Somehow, I have stored that I was
>born on June 13, 1969.  What this has to do with intelligence is a different
>story.

  I still disagree.  We have some kind of memory.  But that memory does
not have a store operation, and does not have a retrieve operation.
The date of your birth happens to be something that you remember fairly
readily.

  There are some things you would like to learn, so that you could
remember them.  But somehow it never works out.  That doesn't sound like
a storage operation.  There are other things that you can remember today,
won't be able to remember tomorrow (but it will be at the tip of you
tongue, if only the word would come to you), and will easily remember
the day after tomorrow.  That doesn't sound like retrieve operation.

  If there is no store operation, and no retrieve operation, then it is
not a storage/retrieval memory.

>>>        II. Intelligence is about problem-solving.
>>
>>  Strongly disagree.
>>
>>  Intelligence is all about survival.

>So, all else being equal.  If A is stronger than B, A is more intelligent than B?

  No.  All else being equal, if A is stronger than B, then A is stronger
than B.  I never said that intelligence was synonymous with survival.
My point was that the need for survival is the force behind intelligence.
That doesn't prevent the need for survival being also the force behind
strength.

  If man was created by a god in an act of creation, then perhaps it is
true that we were given intelligence to solve problems.  But I happen
to believe in evolution.  The driving force of evolution is survival,
particularly survival of the species.  Simple things that evolved may
have done so out of random luck.  But as the complexity increases, the
probabilities of random luck diminish.  Anything as complex as intelligence
could only have evolved because it aided survival.  The fact that it
happens to aid in solving problems is an incidental side effect, and
merely reflects that the ability to solve certain problems also has a
relation to survival.

  --------------

  Yes, I knew I was being controversial.  However I was not merely trying
to be the devil's advocate on this.  These are important issues.
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Defining Intelligence
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:28:27 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.035104.22491@dirac.physics.sunysb.edu> charles@dirac.physics.sunysb.edu (Charles Ofria) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.151338.28804@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>>  Certainly humans are capable of learning, and learning implies some
>>kind of memory.  But I deny that it is a "storage/retrieval" system.

>I have to say that I think that intelligence has a definate need for a
>storage/retrieval system.

  True.  This is why man has invented writing, printing, phonographs,
magnetic tape recorders and computers.  They compensate for his lack
of an internal store/retrieve system.

>                           They way that you (Neil) are talking about
>it seems more like a definate dump of informating into memory and
>similarly a retrieval of it in chunks.

  If this is the way you are interpreting my comments, it is surely a
misinterpretation.  I hope the article I just posted will serve to
clarify the issue.

Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:5672 comp.ai.neural-nets:2889 sci.cognitive:225