Intelligence: Real or artificial?

Abstract

Throughout the history of the artificial intelligence movement, researchers have strived to create computers that could simulate general human intelligence. This paper argues that workers in artificial intelligence have failed to achieve this goal because they adopted the wrong model of human behavior and intelligence, namely a cognitive essentialist model with origins in the traditional philosophies of natural intelligence. An analysis of the word “intelligence” suggests that it originally referred to behavior-environment relations and not to inferred internal structures and processes. It is concluded that if workers in artificial intelligence are to succeed in their general goal, then they must design machines that are adaptive, that is, that can learn. Thus, artificial intelligence researchers must discard their essentialist model of natural intelligence and adopt a selectionist model instead. Such a strategic change should lead them to the science of behavior analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Berndt, T. J. (1992). Child development. Ft. Worth: Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cherpas, C. (1992). Natural language processing, pragmatics, and verbal behavior. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 10, 135–147.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Conrad, M. (1992). Toward an artificial brain. Computer, 25, 79–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Crossman, E. K. (1985). The kiss and the promise: A review of Hubert L. Dreyfus’ What computers can’t co: The limits of artificial intelligence. Journal of The Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 44, 271–277.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Dreyfus, H. L. (1979). What computers can’t do: The limits of artificial intelligence. (Rev ed.) New York: Harper Colophon.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Futuyma, D. J. (1979). Evolutionary biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gardner, H. (1985). The mind’s new science: A history of the cognitive revolution. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Malott, R. W., & Malott, M. K. (1970). Perception and stimulus generalization. In W, C, Stebbins (Ed.),Animal psychophysics: The desing and conduct of sensory experiments. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Palmer, D. C., & Donahoe, J. W. C. (1992). Essentialism and selectionism in cognitive science and behavior analysis. American Psychologist, 47, 1344–1358.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sack, J. M. (1984). Cognitive science research. In T. O’Shea and M. Eisenstadt (Eds.),Artificial intelligence: Tools, techniques, and applications (pp. 155–177). New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Searle, J. (1984). Minds, brain and science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Alfred Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Stephens, K. R., & Hutchison, W. R. (1992). Behavioral personal digital assistants: The seventh generation of computing. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 10, 149–156.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Todd, P. M. (1992). Two approaches to machine intelligence: The animat path to intelligent adaptive behavior. Computer, 25, 78–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henry D. Schlinger Jr..

Additional information

I am grateful to Dennis Kolodziejski for his helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper, which was presented in November, 1992 as part of the Faculty Forum series at Western New England College titled “Artificial and Natural Intelligence: Differences and Implications.”

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schlinger, H.D. Intelligence: Real or artificial?. Analysis Verbal Behav 10, 125–133 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392879

Download citation