XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org   
      
   Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy  writes:   
      
   > Lowell Gilbert  wrote:   
      
   >> I see it slightly differently, although not incompatibly so. My   
   >> view is that although we keep learning more and more about how   
   >> natural intelligence works, we really haven't come closer to   
   >> defining what intelligence actually *is*.   
   >>   
   > We have learned there isn't one definition.   
      
   Only by induction. It's possible that could change with new developments   
   in, say, mathematics of emergent behaviours.   
      
   Or it might end up like the poor erstwhile planet Pluto. In that case,   
   one logically arbitrary definition (of "planet") was changed for   
   another. Similarly, some really useful computer technique may conduct a   
   hostile takeover of the term "artificial intelligence" to delineate de   
   facto boundaries of research areas.   
      
   But, yeah, not only is your way true now, I wouldn't bet it changing.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)