In the framework above it sounds like you're not willing to concede the dichotomy. If your argument is that only things made in the image of humans can be inte

In the framework above it sounds like you're not willing to concede the dichotomy. If your argument is that only things made in the image of humans can be intelligent (i.e. #1), then it just seems like it's too narrow a definition to be useful. If there's a larger sense in which some system can be intelligent (i.e. #2), then by necessity this can't rely on the "implementation or learning model". What is the third alternative that you're proposing? That the intent of the designer must be that they wanted to make something intelligent?