Subject:
|
Re: Design
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 5 Dec 2005 13:23:58 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Mr S <szinn_the1@yahoo*AntiSpam*.com>
|
Viewed:
|
1304 times
|
| |
|
|
Dan,
I wouldn't have argued it quite that way, but then I
wouldn't have been so eloquent. On the human mind and
simulation (mimicry) of it, I have three observations:
Intelligent behavior has a goal (easy to mimic)
Intelligence has an agenda (not easy to mimic)
Intelligence has an attention span (I have never even
heard of anyone trying to mimic this)
In any test of intelligence or test for intelligence
that I have heard of, none pass the last two points.
Yet, somehow, even a 4 month old baby is able to have
both an agenda and an attention span even though it
has failed to learn anything useful to the parents
thus far, and in fact, would not be able to pass the
Turing test...
What I call failure mode analysis, a human not capable
of complex character manipulations and calculations
inside the Chinese box would also fail, no matter what
the motivations to pass were, and thus this example is
not a good one, other than as a arm-chair example of
fixed domain problem analysis where intelligence is
not needed or required.
Even in the rigid domain paradigm of computer games,
it might be possible to immitate intelligence having
an agenda, though the game programmer has to guide
that agenda, if not create it. Try writing a program
where the program decides what it wants to do, when it
wants to, how it wants to? Yes, I'm saying that
intelligent entities are born with their intelligence
in tact. It is not learned, only better defined with
learning. This has led me to the conclusion that
intelligence is not a learning process, but the
definition of the machine that is doing the
learning... Learning is a by-product of intelligence,
not the creator of it.
As for the real world and game worlds differing
because of the predefined definitions of objects,
walls etc. I have to say that the real world is
predefined, just a much larger, more complex set of
definitions. For instance; A privacy fence is a
geometric object with associated properties. It is
also a wooden object. It is an object that has
relative motion. It is also often an object that has
the properties of many smaller wooden and/or metal
geometric objects. A fence, on the other hand, can
have so many more differing properties, such as a
chain link fence, a white picket fence, and electric
fence, a barb-wire fence, a chicken wire fence etc....
and all of the associated properties of each fence. It
would overwhelm that game programmer to include so
many possible properties for something that is
represented usefully by a single set of geometric
properties.
The real world can indeed be broken down into basic
geometric shapes and properties... it just takes a
great deal of memory and recognition skills to do so
successfully. Not even all humans are able to do this
successfully.
It will take a great deal of work, but defining a
computing system (not device) that is able to function
as intelligence is STILL a hugely complex goal, one
that remains out of sight.
--- dan miller <danbmil99@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- steve <sjbaker1@airmail.net> wrote:
> ...
> > Searle's own counter to the argument that the
> > man+the rulebook is an intelligent system is that
> > the man could memorize the rulebook and step out
> > of the room able to speak fluent chinese without
> > begin able to understand a word of what he was • saying
> > in response to chinese questioning.
> >
> > This would leave use with a strange situation.
> >
> > On leaving the room, the man would be able to
> > behave as a chinese speaker - but he conscious
> > 'English' self would have no idea what he was
> > saying.
> >
> > It would be like having two completely separate
> > individuals without one skull. Neither would be
> > able to access knowledge that the other had.
> > Neither would be able to speak the other's • language.
> >
> > The situation would appear to have complete • symmetry.
> >
> Except for the fact that the Chinese guy could only
> understand one word
> every million years or so.
>
> What Serle (annoyingly, yes!) fails to comprehend is
> that a human being who
> miraculously had the ability to emulate a Turing
> machine, which in turn is
> running a program able to simulate a human mind, is
> not the human mind he is
> simulating.
>
> Humans who have had their corpus colossum severed
> (for severe epilepsy) are
> effectively two centers of consciousness in one
> body. Tests have been done
> where they let the left hand touch a toothbrush, and
> later identify it from
> a bunch of objects, but the right hand (which is
> associated with the left
> side of the brain, and speech), cannot access the
> information. This is
> exactly the state of affairs in Searle's absurd
> thought experiment. (absurd
> because of the performance problem of a human
> memorizing enough rules to run
> a complex program -- but I'll ignore that for the
> sake of argument). If I
> ask something in Chinese of the "wrong" person -- in
> this case, the
> english-speaking host -- he will know nothing about
> it, because he has not
> learned Chinese. But the Chinese person, who the
> English person is somehow
> emulating, can talk Chinese just fine.
>
> Here's a concrete example of a similar state of
> affairs that can exist
> today: A Macintosh has a PC emulator running in a
> window. On the (virtual)
> PC, you open a word processor, edit a document, and
> save it to disk. Then
> you open a word processor on the Mac, and attempt to
> open the file. It
> won't open. (maybe you can't even find it, or if you
> can, it's in the wrong
> format). Hmm, does that say anything about the
> relative merits of PC's
> versus Mac's? Does it mean anything at all about
> their qualitative
> capabilities? No, it means essentially nothing.
> The PC could emulate the
> Mac, and the result would be the same. That's the
> nature of the beast when
> it comes to Universal Turing Machines. If Searle
> (and the legions of
> philosophy students who actually believe this crap
> -- I've met a couple)
> spent some time understanding the Church/Turing
> thesis, they wouldn't be so
> confused by a simple sleight-of-hand parlor trick,
> and the world would be a
> better place.
>
> It's all so silly, because it's just going to
> happen, and then we can argue
> about it forever. Or until they get annoyed.
>
>
>
> __________________________________________
> Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
> Just $16.99/mo. or less.
> dsl.yahoo.com
>
>
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Design
|
| (...) I don't see any problem with programming an agenda, or an attention span. Are you saying these are intrinsically hard things to do with a computer? ... Yes, I'm saying that (...) I'll go with that. A dog in a human family grows up with dog (...) (19 years ago, 5-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: Design
|
| (...) The Turing test only says that a system that can pass the test should be considered intelligent - not that a system that cannot pass the test is not intelligent. This is an important criticism of the test. There are a lot of very clever AI (...) (19 years ago, 6-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Design
|
| --- steve <sjbaker1@airmail.net> wrote: ... (...) Except for the fact that the Chinese guy could only understand one word every million years or so. What Serle (annoyingly, yes!) fails to comprehend is that a human being who miraculously had the (...) (19 years ago, 5-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
