Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 09/14/04 

Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:06:49 GMT

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:29:02 -0400, Wolf Kirchmeir
<wwolfkir@sympatico.ca> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
>
>> "Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:_yZ%c.25348$lP4.1649486@news20.bellglobal.com...
>[...]
>
>>>If you can't [give a defintiton of intelligence], you can't begin to design
>>>an "intelligent" machine. It doesn't matter which definition you use, so
>>>long as it's one that can be phrased in terms of the machine's behaviour.
>>
>>
>> Isn't that what I was asking for: what qualities of a behaviour would allow
>> us to classify it as intelligent [grin].
>
>The problem with your request is that there is no "scientific"
>definition of intelligence, and there cannot be. There can only be an
>agreed-upon definition. Also, the qualities must be measurable, which is
>not an easy task.

And exactly which scientific experiments did you perform to determine
this? Or did you deliberately put the word "scientific" in quotes as
Glen does, to avoid answering such a question, so that it could only
be taken to mean whatever you choose it to mean? I'm also wondering
specifically which measures were used.

Regards - Lester