Re: How Robots Will Steal Your Job

The discussion is about the _definition_ of intelligence!

Define intelligence? Most people of this planet CANNOT post here!

Have you determined exactly how many words a species would need, then???

Excellent question, imho, and nicely put.

It's called anthropocentric, by the way...

Yes of course, just like people are.

Nobody has seemed to ask himself this pivotal question:

If humans are intelligent, and dogs are not, then there must be a biological difference in the brain! Is there, or are human and dog brains made of the same stuff? It seems they are. So a logical conclusion must be that they have the same capacity, only humans have developed those much stronger.

If humans are 'intelligent' and dogs are not, it means they must have a fundamentally different brain, which they don't!

True.

Me too.

On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 15:22:01 +0100, "Wouter Lievens" wrote or quoted :

How many words of Chinese have you decoded? Perhaps 3 or 4. Does that reflect on Chinese or you?

-- Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming. See

for The Java Glossary.

Another simple definition of intelligence could be that which successfully analyzes cause and effect.

Ray

Intelligence is:

Not stepping into this massively cross posted thread.

Mike

intelligence

Ray Gardener schrieb:

My best definition at this moment is:

autonomous sufficient fast generation of usefull rules =======

Herman sometimes thinking of intelligence working at the same principles like human beings

intelligence

[Zagan] I agree, as R. Steve Walz said, "The discussion is about the _definition_ of intelligence!"

Here's my definition (at least as it pertains to robotics): Intelligence is the ability to gather data and make decisions based on that data. In this context, is has nothing to do with human consciousness or awareness. We are talking about machine intelligence. Even simple collision detection is a form of intelligence. Even my TV has simple intelligence since it "knows" how to respond to signals it receives from my remote control.

Intelligence has nothing to do with consciousness or self-awareness. Although this thread is cross-posted, I am replying from "comp.robotics.misc" and my reply is based on the context of that forum.

// Jim

While this is all very fascinating, I fail to see it's relevance to java programming.

Please remove c.l.j.p from any follow-ups..

TIA

-- Andrew Thompson

• formatting link
  PhySci software suite

• formatting link
  1.1C - Superluminal!

• formatting link
  personal site

What a confident assertion.

I must disagree. Higher order intelligence might necessarily give rise to consciousness which includes self-awareness function.

To treat consciousness as a "useless add-on" to intelligence reminds me of Cartesian dualism if nothing else.

Then, you would believe that Chalmers's philosophical zombies may exist. I would disagree with that! Human consciousness is not separate from intelligence! It's functionally another form of intelligence, a collection of higher cognitive functions which we label consciousness...

Regards,

-- Eray Ozkural

I guess I picked this email because it touched upon issues that I was thinking about....language.

It seems to me that there is for most a direct conduit between language and intelligence. On that point lets look at the history of intelligence. Take for example the enlightenment and the romantic era. Here we saw the basis for all our bases of thought now. Eg Descartes..I think therefore I am ( the duality of self), Kant and the duality of consciousness ( now used in human rights and international relations discourse...discussing the categorical imperative- meaning even if we do wrong, there is a universal right in all of us and we choose to stray from waht we believe is right). And then we have romantic influences such as Rousseau who began the whol;e nature/nurture debate.

These foundations are obviously very complex. What has always perplexed me is the very important question of whether abstract concepts and philosophising is solely in the domain of human thought. I often think of artificial intelligance, and think that we pass on abstract concepts(mathematical equations and analysis) to computers- Is that not language?

I guess my question is this- Are emotions a prerequisite to intelligence? OR is intelligance a pure objective science? And finally- If animals have intelligence- Why don't they fight back to what we are doing to the planet? Is their intelligance created merely in communities? Perhaps if they are mammals(gregarious)- then intelligance is created on a smaller scale?

intelligence

Yes. People have been using "humanocentric" in this thread (as you can see from the quote), so I just went with the flow.

And there is. Not in the substance, but in the structure.

Most houses are built from the same basic materials. Are all houses basically equal? Imagine a theatre and a small house both built from bricks, wood, steel and glass. Are they the same in their purpose and capacity? Or does the *structure* of how those materials are put together matter (and matter a great deal).

As we believe mind comes largely from the *structure* of the brain, it is that structure that matters, not the substance.

Apply that logic to, say, the Z80 and the latest from Intel. Both made from silicon.... are they equal??

Structure is pretty important! (-:

The difference that strikes me is that, if I spent a year with a Chinese person, at the end of that year we would very likely be communicating pretty well. We'd have picked up much from each others' languages and would have established a *high* degree of communication bandwidth and accuracy (in other words, we would be able to "say" a lot and get it right).

I've lived with my dog for nine years, and the level of communication isn't anywhere near as high. We've actively studies dolphins and whales much longer than that, and the communication bandwidth and accuracy just isn't there.

Exactly what that means, however, may be a different question.

[Zagan] I was not speaking of "higher order intelligence." I was speaking of the intelligence we are able to program into our robots, and limited my context to that of "comp.robotics.misc."

I do expect that sometime in the future, our computers/machines will achieve consciousness and self-awareness. A discussion of this would be appropriate for "comp.ai.philosophy," but my comments referred to "current" technology.

One could say that a sensor providing data to a robot is a form of consciousness, but I prefer to avoid the term since it is often mistaken for self-awareness. I refer to this as "intelligence" since input data must be analyzed and an action taken depending on the input.

I stand by my definition of intelligence as the ability to receive input and make decisions based on that input, (e.g., stimulus/response).

Current robots and computer programs do this all the time, but that does not imply the robot or program is "self-aware." Intelligence does not imply consciousness, and consciousness does not imply self-awareness.

You are correct within the context which you used to reply, but incorrect within the context of the post I made.

[Zagan] I don't remember commenting on this issue. [Zagan] Eray, I agree with your words in general. A biological being that has evolved to the point of possessing consciousness and self-awareness, will certainly have intelligence. My point is simply that a machine can respond in an intelligent manner to input, and consciousness or self-awareness is not required. Remember, we are talking about machines, not biological entities.

Best Regards,

// Jim

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 11:59:36 -0600, Programmer Dude wrote or quoted :

One experiment you may not be aware of goes like this.

You put two dolphins in separate ponds and connect them by a hydrophone. You tell dolphin A some "secret" and then test to see if dolphin B knows it. You can control the bandwidth of the hydrophone link. If you block out the high frequency sounds, they lose the ability to communicate.

Even if you can't decode the communication, you can prove that somehow some information must have been sent -- therefore dolphins must have a way of expressing it.

But what is perhaps even stranger is the terseness of binary secret sharing. Researchers could detect no difference in the word for "yes" from the word for "no". Yet obviously somehow the information was being communicated.

Humans typically try to treat dolphins like dogs. If they obey commands then they are considered intelligent. Try that same criteria on prisoners in isolation cells, which is effectively what dolphins are.

-- Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming. See

for The Java Glossary.

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:26:50 GMT, "Patrick Mulligan" wrote or quoted :

The counter example here is the orangutan which spends much of its life in solitary. Its intelligence is mainly used to compute routes to food. It solves some very complex puzzles in maximizing calories for effort.

-- Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming. See

for The Java Glossary.

intelligence

Grrrrr. Woof, woof. Grrrr.

Rover

Have you a link to a description of successful experiment of this type.

The opposite of terseness, surely?

The nature of the 'secret' also says something about the communication. Candidly, embedding a yes-no signal (in effect, a single bit) in a large burst of data is not that impressive to me.

- Gerry Quinn

(I was aware of it, but not of any details.)

Important at this point is a description of what was the "secret" and how was dolphin B tested for it.

Important here is what they looked for. E.g. did they check for such things as phase shift. Wouldn't surprise me at all that a sonar-using creature would be expert at using phase shift.

The difference I believe I see is what I pointed out before. Spend a year with even an isolated prisoner who speaks another language, and you'd be able to communicate pretty darn well. I do recognize that part--even a large part--of that is due to shared *human* experience, but I don't believe all of it is.

It might be much harder with, say, aliens that had just landed, but I'd bet you that after a year we'd communicate fairly well.

That just doesn't happen with animals. After nine years with the same animal, we understand each other pretty well in the very limited area where we do communicate, but the absense of real communication is very apparent.

[sigh] But I'd give a lung (and a kidney) to spend nine years with a dolphin. :-( I envy you your experience with them!