Subject:
|
Re: Design
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Dec 2005 08:38:09 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
dan miller <DANBMIL99@ihatespamYAHOO.COM>
|
Viewed:
|
1466 times
|
| |
|
|
Do you care to put forth an alternate definition of intelligence? What
Turing did, IMSHO, is simply make the point concrete that intelligence is
what intelligence does. Navel-gazing focus on the 'qualia' of the 'personal
experience' of intelligence and consciousness turns it into a
quasi-metaphysical thing, cleverly out of reach of scientific inquiry.
Intelligence, simply put, is the ability to act intelligently, nothing more.
There may be other things going on 'between our ears', but from an
evolutionary and functional perspective, they are pretty much irrelevant to
the task at hand.
-dan
--- Mr S <szinn_the1@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Steve,
> I agree, the Turing test is not up to date, and even
> in its time did not indicate intelligence accurately,
> though I would go so far as to say that those
> intelligent programs that might pass the Turing test
> won't pass the test of demonstrating all of the
> criteria of intelligence as I know them. I do think
> that the first intelligent entities will be computer
> based rather than robotic based. Each domain
> represents an overlapping paradigm of competence for
> the other. The simple fact is that there is more
> information available to the computer based entity
> than there is for the autonomous entity.
>
> Not to lose sight of the thread, it will be a
> combination of the 'game' world and the real world
> that achieves success, for all the reasons that I've
> already stated. I can see an entity that utilizes huge
> numbers of standard computers to encapsulate its
> intelligence, but the 'wetware' must be correct before
> intelligence will happen. Intelligence is the
> definition of the mechanism, not its result. My
> reference to the 7-second memory man shows that
> intelligence happens without memory capacity, and
> without social interaction or learning. Trying to boil
> it down to some set of facts or statistics does not
> preclude either the 'real' world or the 'game' world.
> It does preclude inextricable links to either.
>
> Again, mimicry of intelligent behavior is not
> intelligence, and thus my problem with both the Turing
> and the Chinese tests, as well as others. Neither test
> demonstrably assures intelligence on true merit, but
> does so by accident. To explain, intelligence was not
> understood when either test was developed, and so, by
> attrition, I reject both out of hand. Turing tests to
> determine if a machine is more intelligent than the
> test, while the Chinese experiment 'thinks' about how
> to limit intelligence to an algorithm. Intelligence is
> about more than this, it is about free will (no Rush
> music please)... Intelligence not only acts out of
> free will, but because of it. This is the basis of
> both the agenda I spoke of, and the attention span. No
> software has yet demonstrated either. If you have
> links to such information, please feel free to share.
> The weak relation to the ID is important in this case.
> A computer program, no matter how intelligent it
> seems, is not intelligent until it asks why you built
> it. This self awareness indicates the agenda, and the
> intent of an attention span... that is to say that it
> will seek other input if the current input is not
> meeting the needs of the goals of the current self
> determined agenda. In a 'game' world, intelligence
> would not only be a game that is self-determining, but
> one that decides how to use the computer it resides
> on. This, I'm certain, has not been achieved.
>
> Again, I side with you, whether in the 'real' world,
> or the 'game' world, strides toward making sense of
> intelligence are real, and are not denegrated by the
> environment in which it happens. The trouble that I
> see is that it hasn't happened, nor is it likely to
> happen with the current theories of intelligence.
>
> So, my point is that while we argue about where
> intelligence should or might be, we ignore what
> intelligence really is, and its definition. While
> seeking answers, we, as a people, have stopped to rave
> about imitations of intelligence rather than seek out
> its true meaning and definitions. The machine between
> your ears defines intelligence, and gives us the
> abilty to learn, yet, despite full ownership of that
> machine, we have yet to reverse engineer it.
>
> Beause they have the machine between the ears, a deaf,
> dumb, mute, quadraplegic is still intelligent, we just
> don't have the ability to communicate with them. This
> lack of communication dampens our understanding,
> despite how or what we know of the limitations. Any
> computer system that can replicate the machine betwem
> the ears has the ability to be intelligent. It remains
> to be seen if such an event can occur in reality.
>
> Both the labratory and the 'real' world are valid
> experimental locations at this point. It is the
> definition of intelligence that is in question, not
> where it should be investigated.
>
> <end rant>
>
>
> --- steve <sjbaker1@airmail.net> wrote:
>
> > Mr S wrote:
> > > 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...
> >
> > 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 programs out there that
> > cannot pass the Turing test because (amongst other
> > things) they don't know who Santa Claus is. This
> > doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't
> > intelligent.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________
> 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 1 Reply:
 | | RE: Design
|
| Hi All, I've tried everything to unsubscribe from this email service to no avail. Any suggestions? Jeff -----Original Message----- From: dan miller [mailto:danbmil99@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, 6 December 2005 6:38 PM To: lego-robotics@crynwr.com (...) (19 years ago, 6-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Design
|
| Steve, I agree, the Turing test is not up to date, and even in its time did not indicate intelligence accurately, though I would go so far as to say that those intelligent programs that might pass the Turing test won't pass the test of demonstrating (...) (19 years ago, 6-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
|
|
|
|
