Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 13:27:12 03/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 14, 2001 at 14:34:26, Christophe Theron wrote: >On March 14, 2001 at 12:11:41, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>Well, Bruce, your answer widens the scope of the debate. To begin with, the >>concept of intelligence as something proper of an entity capable of intelligent >>behaviour does not solve the problem as much intelligence as such is not clearly >>stated first. Sounds a little bit like a circular reasonning. Nevertheless I >>concur with the sheer fact that all this is a matter of behaviour in certain >>frames of reference. Probably a way to approach the problem is, then, to reject >>from the beginning the idea of intelligence as some sustantive, specific entity >>we can define in a sentence. Maybe it is more like a cluster of certain >>behavioral abilities in different levels and empirical ocasions. In that case >>even such a mechanical thing as to remember is fundamental. And certainly the >>capacity to calculate accurately inside a system of rules is, as well, a kind of >>intelligence. And the highest one would be the creative endeavour of the so >>called genuses that change the entire frame of rererence. If this is so, then, >>yes, we could say program show intelligence in some level. >>Cheers >>Fernando > > > >All attempts to give a definition of intelligence, or to give a set of rules to >identify an intelligent behaviour/entity will fail. > >If it was possible to give the definition or the set of rules, it would be >possible to create an intelligent entity. > >It is not at this time, not even remotely. > >You are left with the good old Turing test. Use an intelligent entity to test >another supposed intelligent entity. > >This would lead to the conclusion that intelligence is like "gradient". It's >nothing in itself, but you can find various degrees of it. We will categorize as >"intelligent" the first entity that will actually be "more intelligent" or "as >intelligent" as us. The rest (chimps and chess computers) we will treat with >contempt. > >And there is no indication about the number of dimensions of intelligence. It >would be intellectually better if there would be only one dimension (so you >would be able to order all "intelligent" entities on the same straight scale), >but it is more likely to find a high number of dimensions (so A>B and B>C does >not mean A>C). > >Just my two cents. It's blurry but it must be. If it was not that would mean I >would have solved the problem. :) > > > > Christophe I've always thought the Turing Test was kind of mindless. All it does is measure the degree to which an entity is able to convince another entity that it is like a third entity. The faked entity that's most often used is a human being, and the judge is most often another human being. I don't see why that particular entity is the base-line for anything, and I don't see why a human judge is important. It's possible to define terms, but the term "intelligence" is a very difficult one to tackle, and people get all whipped up because they can't seperate that term from other terms that involve life, humanity, and spirituality. I've spoken with people about that term, and had them eventually get around to telling me that they thought it implied an ability to reproduce. As anyone who has actually reproduced will tell you, all phases of that process are often accompanied by decided lack of intelligence. bruce
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.