Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!umich!vela!atterlep
From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Alan T. Terlep)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: What AI is exactly.
Message-ID: <2992@vela.acs.oakland.edu>
Date: 13 Sep 90 01:52:18 GMT
References: <25392@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <3797@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> <3543@gara.une.oz.au> <3815@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM>
Reply-To: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Alan T. Terlep)
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI
Lines: 29

In article <3815@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> jim@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Jim Ruehlin, Cognitologist domesticus) writes:

>We have no indication
>that human intelligence isn't the only form of intelligence.  Admittedly,
>our definition (flimsy as it is) doesn't incorporate much beyond what we
>observe in humans.  But so far, it's the only example we've got. 

  As a side point, I'd like to say that this is untrue.  In fact, there are
examples of intelligent behavior in many animals.  The example of the primates
that speak sign langauge has been proven since one of the researchers walked in
to being teaching a new chimp sign language only to find that the chimp had
already learned the signs.  The reason these aren't seen as indications of 
intelligence is that humans aren't going to give up their special status in the
world without a fight.
 (If you want another example, I heard secondhand of a report that claimed that
pigeons could identify a cup of water with the ocean, signifying abstract 
thinking.)

>Human intelligence is the only example of intelligence we've identified.
>The tasks we try to make computers do are tasks that humans are good at.
>What other modelling could it be?
  
  This is true.  Still, from a theoretical point of view, it's important to
realize that modelling non-human intelligence is possible--if only for non-
humans.
 -- 
Alan Terlep     			"Violence is the last refuge of the 
Oakland University, Rochester, MI	   incompetent."
atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu				     --Isaac Asimov