But if the dog /is/ communicating with you, then it is (presumably) intelligent.
But much of what we think of as "intelligence" or "intelligent behaviour" is merely human behaviour. For example, the ability to speak fluent and meaningful English is certainly evidence that one is intelligent (to a greater or lesser degree!). But the absence of fluent English is not evidence of non-intelligence. Ask any Russian (in Russian, of course!).
Clearly.
No explanation is /necessarily/ the most likely. A moment's thought should clarify this for you.
That seems like a reasonable retort, so I'll try to explain what I think you meant. Taken at face value, you seem to say that a very intelligent creature would be able to recognise intelligence in a creature of another species. I think this is wrong-headed.
I don't postulate it. I merely refuse, at present, to rule it out as easily as you seem prepared to do.
I don't think it's necessarily the case that we are able to recognise intelligence in other species (although we'd probably take the hint if a non-human species developed nuclear weapons!).
Bad analogy. Closer: if you flip a coin into a bucket so that you can't see it land, and call out "heads" irrespective of the actual result, you can certainly do that 50,000 times and then claim that it is significant. But that doesn't mean that your analysis of the coin's behaviour is an accurate one.
Corey clearly understands my argument.
Have you considered the possibility that human intelligence is so ignorant, humanocentric, and egotistical that it can't recognise intelligence elsewhere?
Indeed. Of course, if some animal species /are/ intelligent, they might draw up a very different list, and conclude sadly that we clearly don't qualify.
Well, I introduced it because I thought it would be useful. (The example should have used a camel, not a cow, to attract the Pratchett vote.) The poor thing is a little tired now, and it has already served its purpose in illustrating a point. Clearly, Chris isn't convinced, and I don't propose to serve him any more algebraburgers.
Yeah, I'll buy that for a dollar. The contradiction is clear to me, but it's late and I'm tired.
It's not a circular argument. If we can't see any signs of animal intelligence even after looking for it, then /either/ it doesn't exist, /or/ we aren't very good at recognising animal intelligence.
Right.
Does 1 have to be shaped like that? How about =? Do you insist that animal intelligences (should they exist, and should they be into mathematics) use the same symbols that we do?
Precisely. Again.
Oh dear. It clearly isn't worth going on. Reply as you will.
Corey *agrees* with your argument; I do not. I fully understand it; I just *perceive* that it's unlikely.
My perception is that I believe intelligence *transcends* species. I think I've made a good case for why I think this.
You guys assert over and over that we might, or probably would, not. But you've presented no good *reason* why not other than *assuming* it would be so. I perceive some good (IMO) reasons why it would not be so.
Of course. I believe--if it were there to be unrecognized--that somewhere along our long history, there would be *enough* people who are NOT ignorant, NOT anthrocentric and NOT egotistical to have recognized it.
The evidence is simple: YOU guys have considered the possibility, and you (and I) are strictly arm chair analysts. If we can do it, I have to believe people in a better position than us could.
we aren't very good at recognising animal intelligence.
Agreed. Do you have an probability for either choice? My analysis assigns a larger probability to the former for reasons I've stated.
Of course not. (Obviously not, I would have thought.)
You seem to be translating lack of finding intelligence in animals as "NO DATA". This is not so. It *is* data, and--thus far--the data pretty much says one thing.
Thus it is evidence, and as it piles up over the centuries, it begins to be significant evidence. NOT PROOF... EVIDENCE.
In the interests of efficiency and perhaps wrapping this up, this contains responses to four separate posts, all by the illustrious...
Richard Heathfield:
At the very least, not intentionally (if for no other reason than I have sufficient confidence in my point of view to not need tricks). However I would disagree I'm extending anything. (How *does* one extend squirrel scientists and mathematical cows? :-)
Cows and squirrels aside, I'd say the idea that intelligence would be utterly unrecognizable to people looking for it IS a bit extreme.
Consider that we do share many traits with animals. Social grouping, heirarchies of position, territoriality and many basic emotions (joy, fear, anger). We obviously understand them well enough to train them and make use of them. Many of them form family groups and raise young. Many share the same five senses and use the same communication "bands" as we.
One might say they "act" like humans, but I suspect it's more likely there simply are traits that are very universal to intelligence.
Funny, then, that recently you've done so several times. Perhaps you do it unwittingly. :-|
Animal biologists apparently consider it rare and unusual.
In light of your concern about "shyster" tricks, I assume you're not attributing any of these qualities to me? I assure you I am neither cynical nor dismissing. I've spent an adult lifetime in fascination with animals and have gotten to know as many as I could.
No, I mean that we've never found anything suggesting a symbology or abstract language (another form of symbology) in animals. My opinion is that *any* symbology would be distinquishable from random noise (pretty much by definition).
SETI's work *depends* on this perception.
It isn't a matter of looking for *good* books--a matter *strictly* of
*personal* opinion--but of looking for books at all (not a matter of personal opinion).
I agree the possibility exists (never said otherwise), but I consider it a very small possibility. I am convinced intelligence creates order. Order is noticable.
What was that about extending an argument into silliness? (-:
Throughout history? Considerable. MANY person-years by people
**trained** in animal biology. Many more by interested observers. Not to mention thousands of years of close association by average people. That's a fair amount of data.
If we are so limited by our human imagination, how is it we invented quantum physics, higher mathematics and computer science? These have nothing to do with human experience, yet people seem able to advance and work successfully in these fields.
You now agree we know more about animals than we do about planets?
People spend a lifetime and career studying this stuff. If you--an armchair analyst--can dream of this, how can you imagine people with training can not?
And animals do engage in marking activities. Many use urine to mark their territory. Bears and cats scratch trees to do the same. So we see crude signs of "documentation", but no sophisticated ones.
(Not extending anything there, are you? :-) I'm suggesting animals are *probably* not highly intelligent.
Considering information theory and the kinds and numbers of minds studying this stuff, no, it doesn't. Not at all. Order is order.
We've looked everywhere there is to look: nests, dens, territorys, on their bodies, in the trees, under the ground,... what's left?
If I *described* your ideas as infantile or idiotic, you would not consider that an insult? I have an experiment for you: ask twenty people that you *trust* if calling an adult's behavior childish is an insult. I'd bet you get twenty identical answers.
INCREDIBLY unlikely. We *know* animals communicate with each other, we therefore *know* animals are capable of some form of communication.
Consider:
I issue a command, my dog obeys. Communication.
She wants to go out. She sits by the door, looks over her shoulder at me until I respond. Once out, she pees immediately. Communication.
She's outside and wants to come in. She barks. One bark issued at two- to three-minute intervals (if I don't respond). If I open the door for her *before* this, she just looks at me. If I open the door
*after* this, she comes right in. Communication.
She stands by where her treats are kept, looks at me, looks at the cupboard, looks at me, looks at the cupboard.... "I want a treat." Communcation.
There comes a point when having an open mind is silly. I can't quite
*prove* I'm not a brain in a vat being fed stimulus by mad scientists, and that all of "this" doesn't exist. I can't prove that you aren't a computer program rather than a British Chap. I can't *prove* that Pluto isn't brie-ish.
But those are pretty silly points of view, and there's no reason to give them much credence (except, perhaps, as mental exercise).
Of course she is. Her intelligence is unmistakable, and that's kind of my point. We do indeed recognize intelligence in animals, but it seems rather rudimentary. They are--at best--permanently childlike.
If you're smart enough to know the difference, how can you imagine that people with training are not?
The ability to use a *language* is certainly evidence of intelligence. The ability to use a *given* language is just that: the ability to use a given language. Nothing more.
That's an answer....
... and that seems an insult (or gratuitously snide remark at best).
Put your money where your fingers are: what do you think is the most
*likely* explanation for the apparent lack of higher intelligence in our animal friends?
Your interpretation is basically correct. The only aspect you missed is that we do consider some extremely non-human parts of reality. That is, we--many of us--ARE able to think "outside the box". Thus there seems little reason to insist none of us can.
How about if they developed just tools? How about if they developed commerce, trade and an economy? How about if they had mathematics and language? How about if they had history, liturature and art? How about if they had government and law? How about building on the work of previous generations?
I consider these to be likely universal traits of any intelligence. If you would claim these are all exclusively human, would you claim no other intelligent species in the *universe* would develop them?
One doesn't, but one can sometimes extend one's opponent's position (i.e. push it to an extreme, where it becomes indefensible). If you do this cleverly (and dishonourably, IMHO), the opponent may not notice, and so effectively accept the bait and try to defend the extended position - a hopeless task.
Note that I have not claimed that animal intelligence is certainly unrecognisable to humans. I have, however, pointed out that it is possible that it exists and /has not/ been recognised, perhaps because we are too willing to associate intelligence principally with human characteristics.
No, I haven't.
That isn't possible. An insult is a deliberate act (or, at least, if you think differently, then we are arguing over terminology again). I have not insulted you.
It is certainly very common in parenting animals.
No, I think you just haven't thought it through.
That is to your credit.
Quite so.
Corey Murtagh pointed out a flaw in this perception.
But intelligence /is/ a matter of opinion. We have yet to agree on a definition!
Perhaps animal intelligence simply doesn't exist, perhaps you're wrong and intelligence needn't create order, or perhaps the kind of order we look for isn't the kind of order intelligent animals are interested in creating.
I was merely outlining a few common human characteristics. Remember that we adjudge humans to be intelligent. Presumably, then, the above counts as intelligent behaviour, for humans. No wonder animals are not considered intelligent. They're not dumb enough.
In other words, you don't know. Hint: even if everyone on the planet did nothing but observe wildlife for the next N years (for large N), we still wouldn't have discovered all the species on the planet yet, let alone managed to assess their levels of intelligence. (I had put "the next 100 years", but it was a finger-in-the-air guess, so I changed it to N; but I'd /guess/ at N >= 100.)
They have quite a lot to do with human experience. Mathematics is what mathematicians do. Physics is what physicists do. Computer science is what computer scientists do. It's very much a human thing.
No. We know a reasonable amount (but not all that much) about planets. We know far less about animal psychology.
"Training" is, all too often, the passing on of preconceived ideas, ideas which might be wrong. Can you cite any studies in this area?
It is interesting that we feel able to categorise the purpose of these marking activities, because we don't really have the faintest idea what's going on in an animal's mind when it performs such activities.
No. I used the word "if" to indicate that I was seeking clarification.
I can probably agree with that, to a large extent, too, but I don't set the level of probability quite as high as you appear to, judging from your contributions to this thread. Animals are /probably/ intelligent, but /probably/ not highly intelligent, but the probability is not 0.9+ or anything like it, IMHO.
One creature's order is another creature's chaos. A (hypothetical) intelligent rabbit might be aghast at the destruction of a highly-ordered and well-built warren by an apparently bozo bulldozer-driver. For such a rabbit, the fact that a (to us, highly ordered) 20-storey building will be erected on the site is of no consequence whatsoever. What matters to him is the loss of /his/ order, and - reasoning your way - he would have to conclude that man is not intelligent, because he destroys order rather than creating it.
The planet is huge, and creatures are manifold and varied in appearance and behaviour. We have not looked everywhere.
I would disagree with the description. I would try hard not to be offended by it, since I don't think you would say such a thing without a very good reason. And neither did I.
Yes, probably, but if they are people I trust, then they are likely to be people who can think clearly enough to realise that there /is/ a difference between calling an adult a child and calling an adult's behaviour childish.
Fairly unlikely, I'll grant you. But not /incredibly/ unlikely.
Sounds like a sign of intelligence to me.
I'm not convinced that we are anywhere near that point.
Well, you are talking about a dog, after all. Not God's greatest gift to Mensa, /and yet/ you acknowledge your dog's intelligence. If dogs are intelligent, it is reasonably likely that more intelligent species exist.
See above. "None so blind as those who will not see", and all that.
Fine.
That's true modulo the previous statement.
It's the only true answer I can think of. No explanation /need/ (necessarily) be the most likely explanation.
It was an attempt to get you to think clearly about what I said. I guess it failed. :-(
8> *likely* explanation for the apparent lack of higher intelligence in
Ignorance. But whether that ignorance is on our part, on the part of the animals, or both, is beyond my ken.
If they had these things, we might reasonably guess at their intelligence. But the absence of such things, or our inability to recognise such things when we see them, is no evidence of lack of intelligence.
Analogy time again: take FLT, which was eventually proved by Andrew Wiles a few years ago. He proved it by proving a conjecture from which, if he succeeded, FLT follows. But had he /disproved/ the conjecture, this would not disprove FLT.
Same kind of idea here.
I don't claim that.
In my childhood home, we fed a cat (nobody /owns/ a cat) for a great number of years. At least a decade (unusually long for cats? I don't know, but this cat was around when I was seven or eight and still alive long after I left for college. Yes, various small animals too, including goldfish, again as a child.
Nowadays, just the peacock. (And yes, it has shown considerable ability to learn and to adapt its behaviour.)
Understood. We appear to disagree on the likelyhood of intelligence "B" being unrecognizable to intelligence "A". A large part of the reason I find it less likely is I do NOT agree we associate it with principally human characteristics. Further, we recognize rudimentary intelligence, emotion and behavior in animals, so it seems improbable we would fail to recognize higher levels.
{I will point out some things below for your consideration.}
Between an untrained and a trained opinion, I'll take trained.
I would dispute that parenting is considered altruism, for one thing. Offspring, after all, perpetuate your own DNA. You have a vested interest in protecting your young. Altruism is usually defined as acting without regard for your interests.
It would seem--despite having "thought it through" for a good chunk of my adult life--that if my opinion differs it somehow indicates I have not. {This is what I mean by insult. It is implicit ad hominem that suggests I am ignorant or unthinking.}
{FWIW, a very civilized way to debate and reduce implicit ad hominem is to try to eliminate the pronoun "you" as much as possible. "I think..." "I feel..." "I've read..." are good ways to debate.}
No, he pointed out that the *hydrogen**band* might not be the best place for long distance communication, because the reason it's so quiet is that it's an absorption band. Nothing about symbologies.
(And, FWIW, SETI is searching a fairly close region, so the degree of absorption may not be an issue.)
Part of what I'm saying is that it isn't a matter of opinion, that it is possible to define--or at least describe--it OUT of human context.
And perhaps--particularly in light of the groups this is in--we would better spend our time seeing if we can hammer out a definition of intelligence.
I agree with the first two clauses; I disagree order has a "kind" (that makes it unrecognizable). Order is order.
Not for the reasons listed above.
No, it counts as human social behavior. They are byproducts of our humanity.
BTW, just for fun, there's a few flaws in the original statement. Animals DO "beat up old ladies"--or the equivalent. Young males take on older males to become the new leader, and preditors select the weaker (older, iller) prey (for much the same reason punks prey on the weak--fear of failure/retribution).
And animals that move, move at any speed they like with no regard for the concept of "posted limits". That is, they don't move slower than they can or want to.
As for voting, I suspect that if pack members don't like a self- elected ruler, they "vote" him out of "office" (pity we don't do the same sometimes).
Depends on your definition of "know". For absolute certainty? No. Good enough to make some estimates and assessments? Yes. If they are later proved wrong, we update the perceptions. At least it gives us something to go on for now.
{That's the (slightly) insulting use of language. If there is info to be shared, just share it, don't pretend I'm clueless.}
True, however many--even most--of these many species are very much like ones we *have* studied in detail. It's certainly *possible* that there lurks around the next corner a species that will blow our mind and make us re-evaluate all that we thought we knew.
I just tend to doubt it. Ants are ants. The species of ants we have studied are all fairly similar and ant-like. Bears are all pretty bear-like. Canines and cats, likewise, and so on.
They are *practiced* by humans, but this misses the point. (If the exact same sciences were practice by aliens or cows, would they still be human?) Consider sociology and psychiatry. These sciences deal
*explicitly* with the human experience. The *subject* of study (opposed to the *studier*) is human. I am talking about the subject.
Quantum physics is *notable* for being counter-intuitive: that is,
*entirely* outside human experience. Computer science is really just a domain of math, and...
Math is an almost entirely abstract science. Many believe it is the choice for putative communication with aliens, *because* it is so abstract. As I said earlier, once you invent the concepts of "1" and "2" and "plus" and "equals", 1+1=2 is true *universe-wide*.
I'm sure any animal trainer would disagree. I have at home two excellent books that go into a great deal of detail about dogs' minds as well as a video by a top Hollywood animal trainer. These all reference training techniques that *depend* on our knowledge of how the animals in question behave.
Regardless of what we may NOT know about animals, we do know a great deal about them--how can we not? They have been our partners, prey, friends and servants a VERY long time.
Let's say that's so (I find it cynical, but what the heck). Even so, there are times when training is good and the ideas right. In view of our long history of animals, doesn't that seem to leave room for valid discovery if there were anything to discover?
Go to any library. Go to the animal studies section and browse. It may change your mind about how ignorant scientists are. In particular, I think you'd find them well aware of the dangers of anthropomorphizing.
{Language again. We don't "feel free".} We come to conclusions based on study. We observe, we theorize, we test what we can. There is a great deal of peer review in the sciences, and very little that is bogus survives for long.
Based on our consistent observations, I'd say we have--at least--a faint idea. If not, how is it that our training techniques work so well?
(Yes. FTR, I'd put it above 75% and probably close to the 90s.)
Care to name a number? I'd say we *know* them to be intelligent for some definition of intelligent. The question is: are any of them at, close to, or above, our level?
Utterly irrelevant. The point is that *both* the warren AND the building are *instantly* recognizable as ordered, non-natural systems. There is no question some creature created each. The building, obviously, is a great deal more ordered than the warren.
My reasoning has nothing to do with destroying one order in favor of another, but with the ability to create order at all AND with the level of that order.
By the way, we're talking about symbology systems, not buildings.
I ask again: considering the above enumeration, what's left?
Will you then agree it was an insult?
Both are insults, and I suggested you ask your 20 friends if calling an adult's *behavior* childish is an insult. You seem to agree that they would agree.
Do you?
CS> Even my dog and I [communicate]. | RH> How do you know that the dog is communicating with you? RH> Answer: you don't *know*. | CS> Actually, on this one I'd go so far as to stake my life on it. | RH> And you might still be wrong.
We'll have to disagree. I'd put the odds at 99.9+%. There is really no mistaking it. I cited a number of examples. Given the examples of (apparently) clear communication I supplied last post, what alternatives can you supply that fit the situation?
Also...
Yes, animals are intelligent. I think there's no disputing that. It's the *level* of intelligence under discussion here. But distraction aside, if we know animals communicate, why is it only "fairly unlikely" my dog does not communicate with me?
Such as, perhaps, elephants and cetaceans. The question is how intelligent are they and is there a significant difference between them and us.
Are you suggesting *everyone* else is blind (except you)?
{Imagine for argument that it is you who are wrong. Then it would be me thinking perfectly clearly and you not.}
{Perhaps it is wiser to leave off ALL ad hominem implications and simply deal with data, observations and ideas.}
So do we just give up? Or is it better to decide on something that seems to fit the data and allow for the possibility of being wrong (which we can fix later)?
Can you postulate a real situation where these cannot be recognized? And it IS evidence if we find that these things *are* a byproduct of intelligence.
A huge difference, however, is that all the observed data agrees with FLT. That is, you can plug numbers into x^n + y^n = z^n (for n > 2) all day long and never get an equality. If anything, this would *seem* to bolster *my* point: the observed data very strongly suggests a conclusion, but *absolute* proof is absent.
Regardless of the lack of 100.00000% certainty, the data does strongly suggest a conclusion, and--in the absense of competing data--is likely enough to use for a working theory.
Okay, so is it possible to derive a putative definition of what constitutes intelligence? If machines become sentient, or if animals turn out to be far more intelligent than it appears, how might we recognize it?
I've floated some ideas (replicated below to give y'all something to key off (read: disagree with :-)). What else might there be?
Some possible descriptors of intelligent behavior:
Creating and Using Tools * Developing Commerce, Trade and an Economy * Developing Mathematics and Language * Having History, Liturature and Art * Having Government and Law
Some possible definitions of intelligence:
Abstract Thought (leads to math and art) * Builds on the Work of Previous Generations
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 17:10:48 -0500, Programmer Dude wrote or quoted :
I have written a little essay attempting to summarise man's pathetic understanding of consciousness after a few millennia chewing on it.
See
formatting link
I also thought of a sense of humour and compassion.
Logically, intelligence should be put at the service of survival of the species. If it does not do that, it is not really intelligence, it is foolish cleverness. It is a negative trait, much as we may value it.
Other cultures might consider art and music far more important than technological achievements. There appears to be sexual selection going on in many species based on artistic ability.
Intelligence can be used to chew on a incredible variety of problems. We humans are only looking at a narrow spectrum of the total possibilities. Unfortunately, we put our best resources into solving problems like "how can I kill in the most painful possible way." How can I make the most money irrespective of the effect on others or the environment. No matter how cleverly that is done, I can't call it intelligent. It is a sort of mass insanity.
-- Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming. See
Creating and using tools. Are whales and dolphins intelligent? They don't use tools, but they might be intelligent and may posess some of the descriptors of intelligent behavior. And then, if they don't have tools, commerce, trade and economy are problematic...
In comp.robotics.misc chris burns wrote: : Programmer Dude wrote: :> Okay, so is it possible to derive a putative definition of what :> constitutes intelligence? If machines become sentient, or if :> animals turn out to be far more intelligent than it appears, how :> might we recognize it? [snip] :> Some possible descriptors of intelligent behavior: :> * Creating and Using Tools :> * Developing Commerce, Trade and an Economy :> * Developing Mathematics and Language :> * Having History, Liturature and Art :> * Having Government and Law :> Some possible definitions of intelligence: :> * Abstract Thought (leads to math and art) :> * Builds on the Work of Previous Generations :> Others? Problems with the above? :> : Creating and using tools. Are whales and dolphins intelligent? They : don't use tools, but they might be intelligent and may posess some of : the descriptors of intelligent behavior. And then, if they don't have : tools, commerce, trade and economy are problematic...
This list falls into a really big trap. We are defining intelligence and intelligent behavior by what we observe in our own species. Hell, we don't even see all of these behaviors in all of the cultures on this planet. Another thought that I've had, most people seem to think that intelligence is a binary switch: this species has it, this doesn't - A very humanocentric point of view, if it ain't like us, it ain't intelligent. I feel that intelligence is a sliding scale based upon the species. I've seen planning and tool use in other species (chimps, bears, racoons), forms of government in wolf packs and horse herds, and many animals seem to have the ability to communicate with each other, like dolphins. I posit that just about any animal is intelligent, just perhaps not so much as (most) humans. However, we are very, very limited in our ability to create a proper definition because we live in a vacuum. There are no other intelligent species that we've learned to communicate with, so we have absolutely NO frame of reference. We can continue to try, but until we have met and communicated with another intelligent species our theories are no better than the world views of the ancient Egyptians, Norse seaman or Gaelic druids. We just need more data!
----------- We invented it, if they can't do it then f*ck them.
An idea that ONLY you're capable of thinking, and animals are not.
------------------ You're merely waffling. The thing that intelligence is, is only something humans have. If animals had it, they'd be posting here.
---------------- While this is true, we can extrapolate from it. We do this in other fields.
If we were trapped in an animal's body with our intelligence, then we'd try to communicate with the humans. If we didn't it would be because we didn't HAVE our intelligence. Magical imaginings of there being "other KINDS of intelligence" are fanciful poppeycock that eveb animals don't think about EITHER, only WE do!!
Chicken and egg. You're not intelligent until you create tools, but to recognise you need to create tools is a sign of intelligence.
A better definition would be "Aspiring to better one's circumstances by finding more efficient ways of manipulating one's environment."
But even that isn't really perfect.
This supposes that no animal can be intelligent. Yet, while they may not have the same mental capacity as humans, they are clearly intelli- gent to some degree. (Actually most animals 'communicate' - but that isn't the same as 'language'. And some have complex social behaviours
- but that isn't the same as 'government and law'.) How can one define intelligence in a way which encompasses both human and animal?
That second one should be re-written "Builds on preious experience." (To build on work of previous generations requires language to convey learning - language is not necessarily a sign of intelligence.)
My cat, for example, avoids sleeping in main 'walk spaces' after I rushed out a bedroom and stepped on her tail when she was young. Not only does she avoid the spot on the landing in question - but after that incident she made sure never to lie down in any floor space which is frequently travelled (something she was prone to when she was small!)
To (a) realise that getting her tail stepped on was a consequence of sleeping in the middle of the hall... and (b) recognise which areas of floor space are prone to traffic ... is a sign of intelligence. Yet my cat has not language, law, mathematics, nor builds on the experience of previous generations (except in basic skills such as hunting).
The problem is complicated by the fact that humans are not really intelligent creatures. We have high degrees of 'intelligence' - but it is not what drives nor informs our decisions.
There was a great spoof article published many many years ago about the science of Artificial Stupidity. (I'm sure many of you will have read it!) It supposed that to build a machine that was human-like in its thinking, you needed a totally different scheme to AI.
The intelligent thing to do is to realise there is a problem, assess the situation, evaluate the solitions, and then choose the most appropriate one based upon the criteria involved. What humans
*actually* do is decide on a conclusion, find evidence to support that conclusion, downplay or ignore evidence which contradicts said conclusion, then see how far they can push their idea forward before they run foul of someone else's conclusion.
INTELLIGENCE: People need to get from A to B across the river. There are too many people to use a boat. A bridge would be expensive, but would soon pay for itself given the levels of traffic involved. Conclusion: build a bridge.
HUMAN: Gee, what this place needs is a great piece of civil engineering to put it on the map. Let's build a bridge over the river. We'll do a survey to see if we can get enough people to agree to use the bridge. If enough people will agree to use it, getting the money to build it will be easier! Of course a boat would be cheaper - especially as only a few people cross the river each day - but hey... once the bridge is built this will encourage people to visit the other bank in droves!
In the article I mentioned above, there is a spoof language suggested called FOREGONE. Feed in a conclusion, and it will generate evidence needed to support that conclusion (a 'foregone conclusion'). IIRC it had constructs like IF(condition) PRETEND OTHERWISE.
But the spoof makes a valid point. We are often told "once machines become intelligent they might take over the world" - but why would they? Without greed, envy, hate... without emotions an intelligent machine would be just... well, an intelligent machine. Why would it want to enslave mankind? Why would it bother to do anything at all? Surely devoid of any emotion (fear of death, curiosity to see if the grass is greener...) the most intelligent thing for the world's first true AI machine is to do is........ *nothing at all*!!!!
Emotion is what *really* made mankind. Is the grass greener...? Can I make more money if....? How can I get more powerful than...? Intelligence is nothing more than a tool we *occassionally* use to fuel our emotion-driven existance.
Indeed. And there are enough example of animals using tools (otters using stones to crack shells, etc.).
Doesn't building a nest or a hole in the ground count as this ?
Unfortunately there may be languages that we simple don't understand because it's outside of our range of perception or is not based on the normal array of sounds we can make. Apes have been able to use sign language; whales 'sing' to each other; dolphins have learned to use interfaces to request something or give a reply.
If you define law as a system of punishment for unacceptable behaviour, then this also happens in the animal kingdom.
Quite a few of these actually do encompass both. It's just a matter of properly defining your terminology, and finding the most basic common denominator for abstracts like 'law', 'complex social behaviour', 'tool usage' (not neccessarily including the creation of tools - since that depends on physiology), and of course the term 'intelligence'.
Actually intelligence is already defined as the power of understanding = and learning. Understanding bases itself on experience.
=46or measuring purposes this can be split in two:
1) the speed with which an individual can learn new things, and
2) the amount of knowledge that can be acquired and retained.
In either case, teaching the next generation does not require language. Wild mammals teach their young where to find food and water just by being an example.
Looks like you already countered your last sentence (the one in paratheses). Language helps to condense that knowledge, though.
Indeed. Out decisions are usually shaped on what we want to accomplish, = not on what problems we have to resolve.
That's because once we solve our problems, we would be at a standstill if we had no aspiration, nothing to accomplish. We are all driven by wanting to have things, or to become a certain somebody in other people's eyes.
Actually, since mostly we only create machines to do what we want them to do, so they replace us doing laborious monotonous work, we would make = sure that artificially intelligent machines do not get any crazy ideas about = us doing their work for them.
Based on the idea that all these possible changes makes our life easier. That it takes hard work to get there only seems a side-effect ;-)
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:36:34 +1000, "JGCasey" wrote or quoted :
Being warlike with the neighbouring tribe may be adaptive on a small scale. However, it does not scale well either in numbers or when you throw in advanced technology.
These behaviours are pretty much hard-wired. Ambassadors have to strongly suppress their natural reactions.
We have hard wiring honed for stone age life:
- eat to excess whenever food is available gets modern man in all sorts of health troubles.
- avoid exercise and conserve calories.
- be ever-vigilant for attack.
- don't think further ahead that one winter.
- Kill as many animals as you can.
- side with your family or tribe member in any dispute.
To continue with these programs is not intelligent, but we don't yet know how to change that programming, even if we could be persuaded it was in our best interest.
-- Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming. See
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:25:38 +0200, Neomorph wrote or quoted :
You don't need money to keep track of who owes whom a favour, who deserved the best cuts of meat, who is a deadbeat, who is old after a long productive life in a small society.
Money is an imperfect way to try to enforce our original values when you deal mostly with strangers.
-- Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming. See
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.