Subject:
|
RE: Design
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Dec 2005 10:51:56 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Jeff Wharton <j.wharton@nics.com./AvoidSpam/au>
|
Viewed:
|
1353 times
|
| |
|
|
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
Subject: Re: Design
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:
 | | Unsubscribing (ws Re: Design
|
| (...) Suggestion: Determine where your subscription is coming from. It could be coming from two places, since the list is gatewayed for obscure historical reasons. From the header page, (URL) : Note: The lugnet.robotics newsgroup and the (...) (19 years ago, 6-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Design
|
| 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
