Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I just want to know what the philosophers of dakka believe intelligence is. By intelligence, I don't mean how smart one is, or isn't as the case may be, rather, I mean intelligence as it is related to artificial intelligence.

Thanks for your time, and responses,

Shrike78

It's clearly not expert systems, as those can only answer questions they have been programmed to deal with.

For the sake of argument, why? Doesn't intelligence include the ability to solve problems? And how are expert systems different from us? If we encounter a situation that we have no precedent with, can we cope with it?

Humans cope with unprecedented situations by making extrapolations or references to similar or related situations. And can change their decision making processes.

Expert systems can only draw on the knowledge and decision trees programmed into them.

Intelligence is similar to sentience, if i'm right,



Whatever it is, when they were handing it out they clearly bypassed my region, the amoun of people I see with vacant expressions and open mouths, who believe the way to win an argument is to accuse the other person of being gay...

I think what you are looking for is the field of epistimology.

Not really epistemology more the Mind/Body problem and psychology of mind etc
Way I see it either you have a soul or you dont, if you have Bob the friendly robot who has been programmed to be exactly like a human and can sense like one, has the artificial body etc to prove it then if you don't believe in should you have to say he is a person

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_artificial_intelligence for beginners introduction

So, intelligence includes the ability to make decisions, but without prior knowledge of the problem?

Personally, I think that intelligence is better defined by taking information, and using information to create a question.

This is intelligence.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/226423.page

Deadshane1 wrote:This is intelligence.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/226423.page

Wow. I admit after reading through that all I’m left with is wondering exactly how a turd can be gay. Even if it were to have lustful thoughts, it would have to be about turds of the same gender, which is hard when turds don’t have gender. And even if the turds somehow knew which other turds were male or female, what would the gay turd do about it? It doesn’t have the genitals necessary to do anything about it.

Now that is truly a question for the philosopher kings of dakka dakka.


On intelligence, I like the idea of a system with the ability to process information and make decisions that also has the ability to adjust and expand its information collection and data processing. So an expert system that could improve on its processes and surpass its original programming could have intelligence.

Even then, that isn’t necessarily intelligence, if the scope of its process is very small and there are significant boundaries on where its growth might take it. Of course, if you set the bar too high for complexity you end up excluding humans (or at least some of them ). Set it too low and you start including some very basic systems. I guess there isn’t a clear point, but a scale where as complexity and self improvement increases a system is more ‘intelligent’.

I've always been a fan of the linguistic criticisms leveled by Wittgenstein, and Rorty.

In brief: Intelligence, or consciousness, can be defined by the capacity of the individual to induce complex action within the larger collective through the formation of sets of rules for expression. Rules we know as language, mathematics, art, and any number of other terms. The obvious caveat being that the mind (as the object of intelligence) cannot exist in conditions of true solitude.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's clearly not expert systems, as those can only answer questions they have been programmed to deal with.

Its interesting that you say that, because there are certain philosophers who posit that man would be incapable of functioning in a world that was not governed by the natural laws which permit his existence. A kind of anthropic claim to our status as 'expert systems' with respect to the physical universe.

Well, the original post was about artificial intelligence, so I was thinking about the current situation in our technology.

There are two main threads of development in AI, one is expert systems and the other is the type -- can't remember what it's called (heuristic?) where the machine is given a goal and left to learn by trial and error how to achieve it.

The learning kind of system is still very simple and only capable of basic tasks such as walking, but within its limits it works better than the programmed type of system.

Even expert systems are nowhere near passing the Turing Test, though they can work well as a knowledge base which a person can use to aid diagnosis and decision making. This is different to intelligence, of course.

dogma wrote:I've always been a fan of the linguistic criticisms leveled by Wittgenstein, and Rorty.

In brief: Intelligence, or consciousness, can be defined by the capacity of the individual to induce complex action within the larger collective through the formation of sets of rules for expression. Rules we know as language, mathematics, art, and any number of other terms.

So, you're saying that anything which is able to create something complex, such as art, is intelligent?

An artificial intelligence must be able to proactively anticipate needs and formulate solutions without actually having the problem in front of it. Animals become extinct because they only react to immediate stimulus. People adapt because they can consider what they will need tomorrow. The question of a soul is a different topic.

What about the question of the origins of thought? Is thought just an electrical impulse, if so then why does the impulse occur? If not then what is thought.

warpcrafter wrote:An artificial intelligence must be able to proactively anticipate needs and formulate solutions without actually having the problem in front of it. Animals become extinct because they only react to immediate stimulus. People adapt because they can consider what they will need tomorrow. The question of a soul is a different topic.

But people don't always prepare for what lies ahead... does that mean that they lack intelligence?

focusedfire wrote:What about the question of the origins of thought? Is thought just an electrical impulse, if so then why does the impulse occur? If not then what is thought.

Thought is an aspect of intelligence... however its definition requires the definition of the whole, and the definition of the whole requires the definition of its parts... maybe

At our current level of developement I propose the only way we are able to define intelligence is as conscious thought. Whether it's conscious or sub-conscious thought. Sometimes I'm more intelligent when I'm using the un- variety.

Now what is conscious and what is thought? Where do these impulses originate?

Shrike78 wrote:
So, you're saying that anything which is able to create something complex, such as art, is intelligent?

Pretty much. I would say the degree of intelligence can be measured in the relative amount of complexity, and the extent to which that complexity can be utilized to predict/effect further creation. Though I suppose that is a separate question.

Human's arrogance and ignorance is the ultimate irony to intelligence.

What we have now is a warped sense of :

ego , self satisfaction , selfishness , biased , excuses
to validate how we mistreat everything else around us.

Humans fear equality... what we cant achieve (omnipotent) we put other life forms down to satisfy our own flaws.

Therefore AI will never develop or grow into sentient beings with intelligence to our standard or preference.

Because we are flawed to start with.

dogma wrote:

Shrike78 wrote:
So, you're saying that anything which is able to create something complex, such as art, is intelligent?

Pretty much. I would say the degree of intelligence can be measured in the relative amount of complexity, and the extent to which that complexity can be utilized to predict/effect further creation. Though I suppose that is a separate question.

So... if a robot was made that could... say, compile all famous works of art, and then recreate a new work of art based on the components of each piece that make it popular, would it be intelligent?

Why not?

LunaHound wrote:Human's arrogance and ignorance is the ultimate irony to intelligence.

What we have now is a warped sense of :

ego , self satisfaction , selfishness , biased , excuses
to validate how we mistreat everything else around us.

Humans fear equality... what we cant achieve (omnipotent) we put other life forms down to satisfy our own flaws.

Therefore AI will never develop or grow into sentient beings with intelligence to our standard or preference.

Because we are flawed to start with.

However, "true" AI will be able to evolve beyond it's initial programming, much like humans learn to do more than what they were born with.

However, the differences between true AI and humans are relatively few, imho, but create vast differences in their essence.

First, Humans die, but True AI will be able to long outlast its desingers.

Second, True AI will be able to compute at the speed of an immensly powerful computer, meaning that it will be able to learn faster.

Third, being a computer, it will be able to directly interface with online networks, allowing it to gain instant access to a vast wealth of data.

These are basically the only differences that I can forsee will exist between True AI and humans.

focusedfire wrote:At our current level of developement I propose the only way we are able to define intelligence is as conscious thought.

By conciousness, do you mean self awareness?

If so, then are dophins intelligent? They pass the battery of self awareness tests that scientists hurl at them.

Shrike78 wrote:

dogma wrote:

Shrike78 wrote:
So, you're saying that anything which is able to create something complex, such as art, is intelligent?

Pretty much. I would say the degree of intelligence can be measured in the relative amount of complexity, and the extent to which that complexity can be utilized to predict/effect further creation. Though I suppose that is a separate question.

So... if a robot was made that could... say, compile all famous works of art, and then recreate a new work of art based on the components of each piece that make it popular, would it be intelligent?

Why not?

No, because it is incapable of creating a new style of art. Also, art without thought is not art.

Shrike78 wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:An artificial intelligence must be able to proactively anticipate needs and formulate solutions without actually having the problem in front of it. Animals become extinct because they only react to immediate stimulus. People adapt because they can consider what they will need tomorrow. The question of a soul is a different topic.

But people don't always prepare for what lies ahead... does that mean that they lack intelligence?

Not exactly intelligence, but most likely imagination. And some people get into a habit of believing they are smarter than they really are and so stop looking around themselves.

warpcrafter wrote:Not exactly intelligence, but most likely imagination. And some people get into a habit of believing they are smarter than they really are and so stop looking around themselves.

We call these people wargamers.

Too true. If I go any longer without being repeatedly insulted by 12 year olds I might fall into that trap myself.

Shrike78 wrote:

So... if a robot was made that could... say, compile all famous works of art, and then recreate a new work of art based on the components of each piece that make it popular, would it be intelligent?

Why not?

I would say yes, others would say no. To my mind all art, language, and other such systems are just one larger 'human system' of progressively deepening complexity. Meaning that, should we prove capable of creating a means of approximating the human mind in terms of recall, and association, it is no great stretch to assume that it could be considered intelligent. Which is, certainly, to beg the question to some extent. However, I think the point isn't so much that we can create a unique intelligence, but that intelligence is not unique to human physiology.

Greebynog wrote:
No, because it is incapable of creating a new style of art. Also, art without thought is not art.

Which begs the question what is thought but the association of previously assimilated stimuli?

Also, what art is truly new?

Again, the question, What is thought?

If thought is only tiny electrical impulses, then how do those impulses originate. We understand what causes the electrical impulses. But what is the impulse that caused the cause? Where does such originate?

Some, to much ridicule, postulate that the origins to thought do not even lay with our dimension. Even though, our top scientific minds are currently theorizing the existence of such.

I don't know the answer. But, it is fun to contemplate.