Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1

From: Wolf Kirchmeir (wwolfkir_at_sympatico.ca)
Date: 09/15/04 

Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:55:33 -0400

Lester Zick wrote:

> 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

The word "scientific" is in quotes to signal that to call any definition
of intelligence the scientific one shows a misunderstanding of both
terms. The quotes are shorthand for "so-called", IOW. A standard use of
quotes.

It also signals that the meaning of the term is unclear, IOW, I don't
know exactly what Alan wants the term to mean. I know what it can not
mean - some property or entity discovered by scientific investigations.
"Intelligence", whatever people mean by it is just - whatever people
mean by it. The best a scientist can do is try to rephrase the
definitions such that measurement is possible.

As for measures - I've had some experience with various IQ and
achievement tests (including SATs). I also have extensive experience
devising reading tests, etc. You know, the kind where you "score" the
answers and get a number that is supposed to be a measure of the test
taker's knowledge or whatever. I could give you a rant on why so-called
objective tests aren't, but I'll spare you. -- You're welcome.