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.

Intelligence is a collection of various memory and data storage and processing. It includes emotional responses as well.

It is far too complex to boil down into "this is intelligence" and "this is not".

As for art being new...we don't know yet. One of the smartest things I've ever been taught: truth is learned in degrees. That is why children want to read stories and fairy tales over and over.

Art is about truth; often it needs to experienced multiple times for the entirety to sink in, and this process typically applies to the artist as well.

So there is new art, but we cannot recognize it in binary fashion. We must be exposed to it for some time.

dogma wrote:

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.

So,, the robot that can make art, if it has no other means of communication, and has no ability to react to any stimulus beyond the art data base that it has access to, is it still intelligent?

From someone who foolishly stumbled into philosophy after years of biological study I can tell you if you are at all scientifically minded, the answer to what it intelligence is we do not know. If you are a philosopher of any sort the answer is its complicated. I dont think it is too complicated to boil down into this is intelligence and this is not, it all depends on how open minded you are. Someone who defines a coherent, consistent, and, dare I say, logical system to define intelligence may well be able to create such a divide. The real question is, how many people would buy it?

@dienekes- I find it hard to believe that truth can be learned in degrees, because that would require it to exist logically (meaning in a fashion that could be understood), and in everything I have come across it does not. I would not argue that efficient programing occurs in degrees, much like boiling a frog. Not to say that things that exist are taught to children are not beneficial to continuing our society, or even progressing it (depending on your view of progress).

Shrike78 wrote:
So,, the robot that can make art, if it has no other means of communication, and has no ability to react to any stimulus beyond the art data base that it has access to, is it still intelligent?

Sure, insofar as we agree that what is being manufactured is original art.

Intelligence is the ability to expand, grow and to improve in all areas.


& Why am I european now & not british...?

just to muddy the waters a little.

Some are mistaking sentience for intelligence. There is such a thing as an intelligent dog, without being capable of many of the abilities defined in above posts as definitions of intelligence.

@Orlanth, good catch.Maybe this is the problem.

The original question was about artificial intelligence.

The current common accepted definition of A.I. is for it to achieve a certain level of sentience.

Being intelligent or smart doesn't neccessarily mean sentience.

This is sort of what I was getting at with my comments on defining A.I. as conscious thought. Or more simply to be self-aware.

@ Razerous, Dude, I like your style and find I agree with you more often than less.
In this case, though, the definition is a little to vague. Seems more like the definition of evolving life. The ameoba, a virus, and many other evolving creatures fit your definition by being alive and evolving.
I may be misinterpreting your point and if so please excuse my denseness.

Orlanth wrote:just to muddy the waters a little.

Some are mistaking sentience for intelligence. There is such a thing as an intelligent dog, without being capable of many of the abilities defined in above posts as definitions of intelligence.

That, of course, begs the question 'what is sentience'? We understand it as self-awareness, but what indicates self-awareness? Nominally I would consider it to be the ability to adapt to the environment. In which case dogs also possess some degree of sentience, as they most certainly can learn.

A more interesting question, I think, is whether or not a dog would consider human to be sentient.

Many of us have preconcieved ideas of sentience. But when asked what it is we find it hard to verbally define. We know deep inside but are unable to describe it.

I had a thought that was somewhat on this subject a while back. Please bear with me for a bit.

I was looking at an old Oak tree and observed how the tree resembled a brain and brain stem. It made me wonder about what we think of as enlightened and what is percieved as sentience. About our inability to define the level of consciousness in that which surrounds us.

Many enlightened people wish for a life they view as the ultimate expression of evolution. A life of peace and to exist off of pure energy. But if you asked these people if a tree was sentient or more evolved than us they would laugh at you.
Funny. When we die we eventually return to the earth from which these trees grow. So until we are regularly rocketed off of this sphere we are all, scientifically speaking, interconnected.

Maybe the answer isn't as important as regularly asking ourselves the question.

I don't know. I probably come across as just an old man rambling. So I'll shut up for now

I'd rather be considered an old man rambling than a 22 year-old who masturbates intellectually, so I think you have the upper hand in the stereotype game.

Also, I agree with you. As with all rhetorical matters the issue is not one of coming to a conclusion, but understanding that the lack of a clear one invites the continued act of interrogation.

Greebynog wrote:

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.

BUt it would be a new style of art, derived from the best aspects of each famous piece of art that it has in its data base. In the same way that humans draw inspiration from their experiences right?

dogma wrote:

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.

However, the robot that I described would not be expressing anything, merely following its programming right?

focusedfire wrote:Many of us have preconcieved ideas of sentience. But when asked what it is we find it hard to verbally define. We know deep inside but are unable to describe it.

I had a thought that was somewhat on this subject a while back. Please bear with me for a bit.

I was looking at an old Oak tree and observed how the tree resembled a brain and brain stem. It made me wonder about what we think of as enlightened and what is percieved as sentience. About our inability to define the level of consciousness in that which surrounds us.

Many enlightened people wish for a life they view as the ultimate expression of evolution. A life of peace and to exist off of pure energy. But if you asked these people if a tree was sentient or more evolved than us they would laugh at you.
Funny. When we die we eventually return to the earth from which these trees grow. So until we are regularly rocketed off of this sphere we are all, scientifically speaking, interconnected.

Maybe the answer isn't as important as regularly asking ourselves the question.

I don't know. I probably come across as just an old man rambling. So I'll shut up for now

Well, I'm wary of the "wisdom" of those who wish for a "life of peace and to exist of pure energy" for several reasons.

1) E=mc^2 : Anything with mass can be reduced to energy, essentially, we are energy, only extremely condensed and stabilised.

2) "Peace" would mean the loss of what drives us, whether ambition, fear, anger, or the other, less malign emotional driving forces.

These emotions are, I think, are another aspect of intelligence, but as of now I am unable to express how.

Chaplian Shrike, It was not my point that those "Enlightened" were correct.

It was more like, what are considered "some" of the most intelligent or evolved in our race would ironically dismiss what could be the very thing they wish for.

Another thing I was alluding to was that we may be surrounded by more intelligence that we know. We may simply be unable to percieve it due to our level of evolution or technology.

The final thing I was getting at was that we are unable to state specifically what sentient intelligence is. This may be a situation of we'll know it when we see it or know it when we are able to percieve it.


May Turtle Pie guide us in this effort Dude this is gonna follow you for a long time and you should be proud.

Shrike78 wrote:

dogma wrote:

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.

However, the robot that I described would not be expressing anything, merely following its programming right?

Exactly, bang on. The whole point of art is to express something, to speak to others, to communicate, to induce emotion or thought or anger in others. What would be the point of art made by machines? What would it mean, what would it say, what would it do? Nothing. It would be useless and boring and pointless. It would be James Blunt.

Okay... so here are some ideas that I have come up with. They may sound off topic, however, I am using this thread as a recource in an attempt to define intelligence, and so the subjects I am broaching are necessary to complete the whole.

There are 2 types of intelligence, one is a measurement of how smart one is, and the other being whether or not one has the ability to learn, synthesize, and apply information to completely different situations.

Animals are intelligent, however, they are not as smart as us.

The measurement of how smart someone is is based on two factors: one being how much information an entity has access to, the other being how well they can make connections with the information they have. For the purposes of simplicity (extreme simplicity mind you, as converting philosophy into math equations is not my forte) the equations/litmus test for how smart one is, can be defined by IxS where I equals information, and S equals synaptic ability to use one set of information for a completely different situation.

Converting this into a math equation may sound weird, but it helps by showing the computers that we have today are NOT intelligent, nor even "smart" as they are pattenly unable to apply information from one situtation to another without user imput.

Babies have an extremely high synaptic ability, however, because they have not lived long, and therefore, experienced less, they are not able to synthesize the little information that they have as well as an adult with more information.

focusedfire wrote:Chaplian Shrike, It was not my point that those "Enlightened" were correct.

Sorry about that... I understood what you meant... I'm not really sure why I argued against that when it wasn't your argument

May Turtle Pie guide us in this effort Dude this is gonna follow you for a long time and you should be proud.

I've been preading turtle Pie across the sites that I frequent... on a few online MMO's my character is chaplainshrike78

and turtle pie will indead guide our hand in this endevour

I dunno Shrike....

I don't think any Dog I've ever encountered permits it's behaviour to be limited by an ancient book of dubious authenticity. Indeed, my pooch has never tried to use a text to justify/excuse his behaviour. Most he tries is to look at me with big eyes and wag has tail. Depressingly this seems to work

Definitely one up in the smartness stakes for Animal Kind right there. (and a half due to be being a confirmed soft touch with Dogs)

And other than Ants, I'm not aware of whole sections of the animal kingdom purposefully wiping each other out over turf. They'll have a scrap sure, but it tends to be one on one.

So thats them two up against us!

And the third master stroke..sure, we eat them eventually, but we keep them in unnatural luxury for their lives....Often wonder who gets the better end of that stick.

Well, haven't you read the hitchhiker's guid to the galazy? Mice are actually pulling all the strings, and are manipulatting us into following their whims

Shrike78 wrote:
However, the robot that I described would not be expressing anything, merely following its programming right?

That depends on whether or not you see expression as a manifestation of programming.

Another question here... does anyone think that intelligence also requires emotion?

Shrike78 wrote:Another question here... does anyone think that intelligence also requires emotion?

Yes, because emotion is the implicit reaction to stimuli. You know being injured is bad because emotion tells you its bad, the rationale behind its negativity comes in the aftermath of the injury.

so... where does the emotion from the robot I described come from?

Its programmed reaction to stimuli. Emotion an intelligence are separate in common discourse, but I tend to think that the one (intelligence) is an emergent property of the other (emotion).

Good, I think the same way on this one.

One important thing to remember too is that computers as we typically think of them being programmed "think" in a very different fashion than we do.
There are two basic types of reasoning: Deductive (2+2=4) and Inductive (filling in gaps essentially). Computers, as their name implies, are terrifically good at the former, being able to chug through massive amounts of data with great speed and precision, so long as they have been programmed (however simply) to do so.
Humans, on the other hand, are exceptional at inductive reasoning, applying rules of thumb that work in some situations to other situations. Think of the first time you realized an authority figure didn't actually know everything. The first time your parents were wrong, and you were right, and you knew it with certainty. You then applied that to other, non-related situations. Suddenly your parents went from omniscient beings to entirely fallible and they don't understand anything about what it is like to be you so I am going to my room to listen to Linkin Park!
*ahem* That's inductive reasoning. Seeing patterns and applying them to other situations on a trial and error basis.

For humans, our inductive abilities are strong, but our deductive skills take a good bit longer. Emotions are the inductive response to situations that pop up from our rules of thumb, before have time to really think of it. This is why we often get angry, then later think it was kind of silly. We are built to respond to situations quickly, and then pick them apart later, which makes a fair amount of sense on an ecological level.

Here is a link to a good blog essay about human thought and evolution : http://www.atomicnerds.com/?p=1590
It references another essay about the same topic from a quantum mechanics view, but I don't have it handy. Good stuff though.

Also, another good bit of further reading is "Origin of Wealth" which goes into economics modeling by new means, using inductive models etc.

The question then becomes: what comes first? Induction, or deduction? If we are to assume that humans are inherently rational beings, then it must be deduction. If we assume they are inherently irrational, then it has to be induction.

Sadly, there isn't a lot of established science in this area due to both a lack of appropriate instrumentation, and ethical standards pertaining to the study of children.

Edit: It now strikes me that intelligence may be defined as the ability to move fluidly between inductive, and deductive processes. Something which I should have been able to state all along, given that IQ tests are generally designed around such a notion. Well, at least the one's which are timed.

My brain is hurting.