🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <6605@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu>, by pluto@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Mark E. P. Plutowski):
> 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" ?  ...
>>...  I think that intelligence is in itself
>>static: it doesn't require learning ....
>>...  But by learning the intelligent being
>>can become more intelligent, whatever that might mean....
>
> All good points.  Let me clarify my position:
> Intelligence is dynamic.  A system that is unable
> to learn from its mistakes is not intelligent.  
....
> 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.

Many years ago, I saw a definition of intelligence that said simply
that intelligence is the ability to learn.

If you have no prior (hardwired, built-in, etc.) knowledge you can't
learn.  But if you have no prior (hard-wired, built-in, etc.) mechanism
for learning, you can't learn either.  So to design a learning system
you have to build in both, but to test it you only have to test the
ability to learn.

In reference to "adaptive systems," I wonder what the difference is
between an intelligent system and an adaptive system.  In one sense of
the term "adaptive," they are the same.  But "adaptive" can mean
"designed to be adaptive," rather than "naturally adaptive."  Systems
we design to be adaptive have strictly limited capacity for learning.
They adapt to certain conditions in the environment, and then stop.
They learn nothing further until there is a change in the conditions
they were designed to adapt to, and even then they don't learn anything
new, they just unlearn and relearn the same old thing.  People, on the
other hand, "never stop learning" (old saw).  A system that always
learns more, building generalization on generalization, or innovation
on innovation, is intelligent.

Let me offer an example.  I ask whether the system of evolution, that
is, the origin of species by variation and natural selection, is
intelligent.  I claim that there is a sense in which it is.  It builds
generalization on generalization, and innovation on innovation.  It
does not forget useful things, but it rejects mistakes.  On the other
side, it does not remember mistakes so as to avoid making them again;
would that disqualify its claim to intelligence?  Does that make it
"adaptive" as distinct from "intelligent?"

M. B. Brilliant					Marty
AT&T-BL HO 3D-520	(201) 949-1858
Holmdel, NJ 07733	att!hounx!marty1 or marty1@hounx.ATT.COM

Disclaimer: Opinions stated herein are mine unless and until my employer
	    explicitly claims them; then I lose all rights to them.