"Precisely why I agreed that yes the "goalposts have been moved." Intelligence has been shown to be a far more complex phenomenon than chess mastery, word games and such.* I do not presume to have a rigorous definition, but then I'm not one of the AI messiahs."

But you must have a rigorous definition, or at least be aware of the several out there, if you are going to hammer on AI for not having produced an AI. To hammer at AI for not producing something that you don't even understand the basic definitions of (much less how passing har it is to formulate good definitions!) is like a greek metaphysician criticizing modern physics for this that or the other thing. What deeply disturbs me about this discussion is on one hand I see bold criticisms and sweeping claims out of you, and on the other hand I see distinct indication of a lack of familiarity to what exactly AI and research into cognition has been trying to do for the last 40 years. Surely you must see that if that is the case, then it is troublesome for your program here.

And, back to your above claims, if we now understand Formally, Philosophically and Empirically via the production of systems that Intelligence is a lot more than what we thought it was just 10, 20 or 30 years ago- isn't that astounding progress for a science? For example, such redefinitions of what the 'stuff in question' is have only happened a few times in the history of a any field to date.

Yeti