Xref: utzoo comp.ai:2737 talk.philosophy.misc:1647 Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!cornell!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!cadre!geb From: geb@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Gordon E. Banks) Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence and Intelligence Message-ID: <1829@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> Date: 29 Nov 88 20:38:14 GMT References: <484@soleil.UUCP> <1654@hp-sdd.HP.COM> <1908@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <1791@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> <819@novavax.UUCP> <1811@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> <757@quintus.UUCP> <562@metapsy.UUCP> Reply-To: geb@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu (Gordon E. Banks) Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA. Lines: 15 In article <562@metapsy.UUCP> sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes: > >We could say that anything that could learn could be intelligent. Or, >intelligence is the ability to learn. Intelligence tests were >originally designed to predict school performance, i.e. learning >ability, so that would fit this definition. > Then I presume that patients with various brain lesions, such as bilateral lesions of the hippocampus are to be considered non-intelligent? They certainly can't learn new facts (although there is good evidence that they still can be conditioned operantly to change their behavior). When presented with new problems to solve, they do about as well as normals, but on repeated presentation of the same problem, normals obviously improve quickly, whereas these patients do not. I would argue that their I.Q. is definitely not 0 by any reasonable definition of intelligence.