The what is AI question

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20061225/9a461df9/attachment-0001.html

[Phil Henshaw-2]

I checked the description of Touring's test again...
[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=touring+test]   Doesn't it
actually say "a good fake is the real thing"?     I always thought the
identifying characteristics of 'real thing' included having aspects that
make a real difference that can't be faked, there for anyone to see if
they look for them?  
 

Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040                      
tel: [phone]                
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>    

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
Behalf Of rolandthompson at mindspring.com
Sent: Monday, December 25, 2006 8:51 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The what is AI question


in a reverse turing test, if a human could convince other humans that he
was a macine/computer would he then be unintelligent.    From" fooled by
randomness", if memory serves.






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20061226/d220675e/attachment.html

[Robert Howard-2-3]

[ph] An intelligent person will predictably come up with unexpected points
of view and solutions for new problems. That seems to display something of a
tendency to accept mystification in place of explanation, but I don't see
the root meaning of intelligence in it.    

 

[ph] This is a great issue.  Making a world model in our minds the way we do
does seem to require that the qualities of things are those we bestow on
them by changing our images of them.  All we have to guide us is our world
model, so when we change our own or each other's world models it displays
our ultimate control over the world in which we

operate.  

 

[ph] Another view is that things are what a scientific study would tell you,
their web of relationships with other things and the nest of internal
structures with which those other related things connect.  This refers to a
an extensive group of physical systems most of which are and will remain
largely or entirely unknown.  It's hard to have it both ways, and the former
surely seems to dominate, but getting rid of the latter all together seems
dangerous, don't you think?

 

 

[rh] It?s like the 100-year history of ?quantum? in six words: ?Discrete

Duality
 Unpredictable
 Small
 Mystical
 Chaotic...?. I wonder what
marketing will bring next decade. My guess is that, like quantum mechanics,
where the definitions only make sense when we realize that we?re part of the
measurement process and not independently isolated from it, a definition for
intelligence and consciousness will likewise only make sense when we realize
that we are part of the measurement process too. We define ourselves as
?intelligent? and ?conscious? with respect to ourselves. Then we attempt to
project that reflexive definition onto outside things and act surprised when
the reflexivity instantly disappears. We are the baseline because we have
said so!

 

Earlier examples of this defining process applied to the definition of
?life?. We are alive because we say so! So we look for these characteristics
in other animals. Early theocracy associated life with a soul only to deduce
that insects must not really be alive because they ?of course, have no
soul?. Later science, wanting to include this taxonomy, starts looking at
dynamic qualities, such as burning food and exhaling the byproducts. Along
comes the industrial age fuel-burning machines, and then ?self replication?
becomes the quintessential element of life. Then certain crystallization
processes are observed to satisfy the definition. Wanting to exclude them (I
suppose for aesthetic reasons) science then adds mutation, fitness functions
and other evolutionary terms to the definition. Someone takes a closer looks
at RNA-viruses isolated from their hosts, and
 well, it?s back to the
drawing board.

 

Are we not playing the same self-referential definitions game with
intelligence and consciousness as we once did, and are still doing, with
life?

 

 

Robert Howard

Phoenix, Arizona

 

 

Well, how about the ability to respond to unexpected situations with

useful choices?   Is that low or high on the tests of intelligence?

 

Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From:  Rob Howard

Sent: Monday, December 25, 2006 12:32 PM

To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The what is AI question

 

>What if the analogy of intelligence is unexpected predictability?

>I can roll a pair of dice, and that is unpredictable; but it?s not

>unexpected. I expect a Gaussian curve of totals.

 

[ph] I think you're saying that people have frequently bestowed
'intelligence' on things that were merely predictable.  That seems to
display something of a tendency to accept mystification in place of
explanation, but I don't see the root meaning of intelligence in it.  An
intelligent person will predictably come up with unexpected points of

view and solutions for new problems.   It's the aspect of invention

there, not the mystery of the process, that displays the intelligence
involved I think. ph

 

>A few thousand years ago, the states of the moon were unpredictable

>(eclipses, elevation, and to some extent, phases). Humans consequently

>animated it with intelligence by calling it Luna?the moon goddess.

>All deities have intelligence. The same occurred with the planets,

>weather; and even social conditions like love and war. Only when these

things became >expectedly predictable did they loose their intelligence.

You all

>remember ELIZA! At least for the first five minutes of play, the game

>did take on intelligence. However, after review of the actual code did

>the game instantly lose it mystery. Kasparov bestowed intelligence on

>Deep Blue, which I?m sure the programmers did not.

 

>In this sense, intelligence is not a property that external things

>have. It?s something that we bestow upon, or perceive in external

>things. Is not one of the all time greatest insults on one?s

>intelligence the accusation of being predictable?

 

[ph] This is a great issue.  Making a world model in our minds the way we do
does seem to require that the qualities of things are those we bestow on
them by changing our images of them.  All we have to guide us is our world
model, so when we change our own or each other's world models it displays
our ultimate control over the world in which we

operate.  

 

[ph] Another view is that things are what a scientific study would tell you,
their web of relationships with other things and the nest of internal
structures with which those other related things connect.  This refers to a
an extensive group of physical systems most of which are and will remain
largely or entirely unknown.  It's hard to have it both ways, and the former
surely seems to dominate, but getting rid of the latter all together seems
dangerous, don't you think?

 

>I suspect that any measure of intelligence will be relative to the

>observer?s ability to predict expected causal effects and be pleasantly

>surprised?not too unlike the Turing Test.

 

 

 

>Robert Howard

>Phoenix, Arizona

 

 

  _____  

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Phil Henshaw
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 5:33 AM
To: rolandthompson at mindspring.com; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The what is AI question

 

I checked the description of Touring's test again...
[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=touring+test]   Doesn't it actually
say "a good fake is the real thing"?     I always thought the identifying
characteristics of 'real thing' included having aspects that make a real
difference that can't be faked, there for anyone to see if they look for
them?  

 


Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040                      
tel: [phone]                
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>    

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of rolandthompson at mindspring.com
Sent: Monday, December 25, 2006 8:51 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The what is AI question

in a reverse turing test, if a human could convince other humans that he was
a macine/computer would he then be unintelligent.    From" fooled by
randomness", if memory serves.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20061226/d8002790/attachment.html