1. Home
  2. General Robotics Forum
  3. I want to create an android
  4. Page 3

I want to create an android

: >Lester Zick wrote: : >> On 25 Jan 2006 09:46:45 -0800, "Bob" in : >> >"Conciousness" is ill-defined and subjective. : >> >Besides, the goal is "intelligence", not : >> >conciousness. : >>

: >> So consciousness is subjective but intelligence is not? : >

: >Intelligence can be clearly and concisely defined, : >consciousness can not.

: Whether intelligence can be clearly and concisely defined has no : bearing on whether it is subjective. I think what you mean to say is : definitions of consciousness are subjective. But I don't see anything : to indicate your definition of intelligence is not subjective.

: > Intelligence: The ability to formulate an effective : > initial response to a novel situation.

: So what makes this definition not subjective? Consciousness could : undoubtedly be defined in comparable terms.

We, as humans decide. A reasonable response can be defined as one that a panel of judges decide is reasonable. There is some culture clash with this method obviously, but it can be decided upon.

: >Consciousness is an internal trait, intelligence is : >an external, observable trait. If a system behaves : >intelligently (solves problems it hasn't seen before), : >then it is intelligent. : >

: >Intelligence can be measured. Human level AI will : >be achieved when a computer can consistently pass : >the Turing Test against a skilled interrogator. : >

: >Intelligence can exist in degrees. A dog is more : >intelligent than a fish, but less than a monkey. : >But does a dog, monkey or fish have consciousness? : >Different people and different cultures disagree. : >It is like asking if they have a soul.

: Well it may be like asking if they have a soul but I don't see that : intelligence is any less subjective as a mechanism. You're arguing : intelligence can be measured but measures of intelligence are every : bit as subjective as people want to make them.

I disagree. Consciousness is purely subjective. Intelligence is a display of rationality. Consciousness is the realization of self and of the spontaneous decision that the self is important. In that manner, I believe that dogs, cats, monkeys, squirrels, etc. are conscious beings, they display fear, joy, etc. (in as much as I can tell). This will be a challenge to determine in a machine. In short, I believe that both intelligence and consciousness can be defined and measured.

IMO, DLC

: ~v~~

Reply to
Dennis Clark
Loading thread data ...

Definition has to be "specific" as to include only objects intended. But you _intent_ remains subjective.

Definition that includes more objects than intended is not "unobjective" it is just unsuccesful.

There are more other criteria which makes a definition useful in scientific threatise, and which cause a particular diffinition to become common. The final test for effectiveness of particular definition is its wide propagation and common usage in discussions. In retrospect it is possible to analyse why some definitions become common and other did not, and come up with list of criteria for success. But the final test of usefulness is also subjective, and our list criteria will only give guide-lines but no guaranties of success. In some cases success of particular definition is just a matter of "first inventor" of certain relationsheep giving it a definition, even though later when relationsheep is better understood a more specific definition could have been given. In other cases it is just luck or higher persuasiveness of particular scientist that his definition becomes more common than other competing one.

It would be interesting nevertheless to come up with such a list of success criteria for definitions.

I would rather say "lack of specificity" where demonstrability is a subset, that applies to definitions dealing with concepts.

Regards, Evgenij

Reply to
Evgenij Barsukov

So? Definitions are either objective or inherently problematic.

But successful definitions in the sense of being true have to be objective.

I'm talking about true definitions.

Hey, people come up with all kinds of more or less successful and unsuccessful definitions all the time. Doesn't mean they're true or even exhaustive.

Well I'm mainly concerned with whether definitions are exhaustive. If so they can certainly be true. But if not they can only be successful or more or less useful in problematic terms.

~v~~

Reply to
Lester Zick

I don't suggest it can't. But humans decide everything subjective or objective. That alone doesn't make definitions one or the other.

Well there's some wiggle room here. Consciousness is mechanized subjectively; that's true. But it's products are objective. That's how and why we can use its products interpersonally to begin with.

Intelligence is a display

Which is just a synonym regression.

I've argued this at length with feedbackdroids and unsuccessfully. I don't see animals as providing evidence of their own consciousness.

~v~~

Reply to
Lester Zick

Just had to inject my two cents in here... If he donated his brain, it would no longer be an android. It would become a cyborg.

An android is a humanoid robot. (entirely artificial, non-biological) A cyborg is a biological/mechanical hybrid, not necessarily humanoid.

Let's keep our terminology straight here!

Reply to
SumGie

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.