🚀 go-pugleaf

What needs defining here is "intelligence", because it seems that
Searle has his own definition which _de facto_ includes being a
human being, or at least an organic being; it's no surprise then
that no machine "intelligence" need apply....
 
Sven, on the other hand (I have a Colombian friend named Sven; it's
an odd name for that part of the world....where was I?) defines
intelligence as "that which appears intelligent" (I paraphrase,
but I think, fairly). This is a simple definition (though it begs
the question of how we determine what "appearing intelligent" is),
and is, I think, the relevant definition to the question of A.I.
 
I believe we want a pragmatic definition: what is the PURPOSE of
AI? We ostensibly design AIs to perform a task or tasks that we
assume to require a degree of intelligence; to the extent that they
carry them out well, are they not intelligent?
 
This all ties back to the emergent properties shtick (sorry). The
systems reply to Searle's CR analogy is entirely appropriate if we
regard "intelligence" as a property of a system as a whole which
cannot be said to reside in any particular component of that system.
It is the property of the "instruction book" and the "guy who
manipulates the symbols" AND the interaction between these sub-
systems AND the interaction of that whole system with the outside
world (that speaks Chinese to the "Room"). As such, "intelligence"
may not be a very useful term, since it's so difficult to pin down,
and of course, since it's such a loaded term.
-------
Josh Hayes, Zoology Department, Miami University, Oxford OH 45056
voice: 513-529-1679      fax: 513-529-6900
jahayes@miamiu.bitnet, or jahayes@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu
"It is always wise to remember that it was the gods who put
 nipples on men, seeds in pomegranates, and priests in temples."