The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Another view of "intelligence"  (Read 14382 times)

Offline stevewillie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Another view of "intelligence"
« on: 11/09/2008 01:35:57 »
This is not a new theory, but simply a view on what the word "intelligence" actually means or seems to mean. In artificial intelligence(AI) research the Turing Test definition is still the standard, a least in terms of whether a machine can actually fool a human that it itself has 'human style' (ie Turing Test) intelligence. The Turing Test (first proposed by Alan Turing in 1951)is fairly straightforward. A human subject carries on a conversation with another human and machine under blinded conditions. There are many ways to carry out the test in terms of study design. The idea is that after interviewing a human and a machine, the human subject cannot discriminate between the two, this is a point for AI. In Turing's time, the interviews could only be carried out by text or by a mediator. Today, human voice simulation is quite good, but perhaps not good enough not to give the test subject clues regarding voice inflections, tones, etc. In any case, the fundamental assumption was, and still is, that our notion of intelligence is subjective and is simply a quality that a being, who is assumed to have intelligence, can recognize in another.

If we were to encounter possible evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI), how would we evaluate it? How do we determine whether some feature or object is the product of an intelligence. (By the way, if you sense that I'm going off on some "intelligent design" track, I'm not. Just the opposite.) Essentially, the question we must ask is: What is the probability that this object or feature is the result of some "natural" process? Of course, determining probabilities requires some knowledge of the process and the distribution of outcomes. I argue that if we want to use the term "intelligence", it seems that it must be based on the assessment that the existence of an object or feature is of negligible probability in the absence of intelligence; GIVEN OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE PUTATIVE PROCESS. By being predicated this way, the term "intelligent design" does NOT apply to biological evolution because we have an adequate, if not complete, theory of the process by which biological designs arose. On the other hand, if we found an object on Mars that could not be reasonably explained by any known or reasonably understood natural process, we might be forced to recognize the existence of ETI, assuming no prior human presence.

So far, so good. But consider that humans (and any ETI) themselves are the product of natural processes. I don't think there can be any doubt about this if you're a scientist. Therefore, everything that is the product of human (or any other) intelligence is also a product of natural processes. It's convenient to maintain the distinction between natural and artificial, but this is a false dichotomy. I argue that what we call intelligence, particularly technologically advanced intelligence, is in fact a phase of cosmic evolution, just as the appearance of intact atoms, stars, heavy elements, carbon compounds, and life are phases of cosmic evolution. These ideas are not entirely my own. Authors such as Ray Kurzweil, Vernor Vinge, Paul Davies, James Gardner and others have thought along similar lines, although my view that "intelligence" is simply a relative, and not particularly useful term based on a false dichotomy seems to be new. These ideas are further explained in my own book which is mentioned in my biography for anyone who might be interested.             


 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Another view of "intelligence"
« Reply #1 on: 11/09/2008 03:12:51 »
Why do you post an old theory in the new theory section of the forum

Most of us know about the works of Alan Turin a brilliant tragic scientist and computer pioneer,, who helped break the German Enigma machine and sectet code
 

Offline stevewillie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Another view of "intelligence"
« Reply #2 on: 11/09/2008 04:17:08 »
Alan

Only the first paragraph deals with the the Turing Test as background. It's true that I'm dealing more with a definition (or actually the lack of one)than a theory, but this seemed the most appropriate place among the choices offered. Turing was dealing with the very specific question as to how to recognize AI. I start with his method as a basis for exploring the difficult nature of the concept of intelligence. It's clear that Turing didn't feel he could define intelligence and so developed the Turing test which is based on subjective recognition. In the second paragraph I try to show how our ideas regarding intelligence are really based on probabilities against certain expectations. Please read the whole post. It may be these ideas aren't entirely new. I name several authors in the third paragraph. I've done the research, but if you can you find sources regarding the specifics that I outlined, including the concept of the false dichotomy, please get back to me.

By the way, I'm aware of Turing's tragic life, his death by suicide and the way he was treated after saving his nation. The lives of great scientists are one of my major interests.
ss
Stevewillie
« Last Edit: 11/09/2008 09:18:46 by stevewillie »
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Another view of "intelligence"
« Reply #3 on: 11/09/2008 14:21:17 »
Why do you post an old theory in the new theory section of the forum

Pot and kettle spring to mind.
 

Offline stevewillie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Another view of "intelligence"
« Reply #4 on: 12/09/2008 21:16:51 »
Any sign of intelligent life here? We humans self-identify with this quality of "intelligence". We build things and our technology would the "objective" evidence of intelligence for another technological species. But, presumably, this other species would have been intelligent enough to get to our neighborhood and observe us. We are still confined to the planet of our origin and we are messing it up big time. How intelligent is that? Even worse, we know we are in trouble, but can't seem to do anything about it. Cyanobacteria have been around for close to four billion years. If intelligence has something to do with adaptation and survival, cyanobacteria are collectively more intelligent than we are.   
« Last Edit: 12/09/2008 22:17:40 by stevewillie »
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Another view of "intelligence"
« Reply #5 on: 17/09/2008 14:24:16 »
If ignorance is bliss, why do we seek the font of all knowledge?
 

Offline stevewillie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Another view of "intelligence"
« Reply #6 on: 17/09/2008 22:42:24 »
If ignorance is bliss, why do we seek the font of all knowledge?

What is the font of all knowledge? If a technologically advanced ET observed us, it might regard us as interesting in the way we regard artifacts of neolithic cultures as interesting. What an advanced ET would judge us by is not what we think or what we think we know, but by what we build and the artifacts of our culture. These are things that can be observed. They are real things which another culture can study. We certainly shouldn't expect to have a linguistic connection with an ET (except possibly mathematics). Intelligence is a nebulous concept. At best,it is relative.     
« Last Edit: 18/09/2008 05:57:16 by stevewillie »
 

Offline angst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
Another view of "intelligence"
« Reply #7 on: 18/09/2008 12:04:46 »
(By the way, if you sense that I'm going off on some "intelligent design" track, I'm not. Just the opposite.)

Just the opposite? Are you sure? Aren't you, in a roundabout way, arguing that our 'intelligence' is the very same intelligence behind our being;"Therefore, everything that is the product of human (or any other) intelligence is also a product of natural processes. It's convenient to maintain the distinction between natural and artificial, but this is a false dichotomy. I argue that what we call intelligence, particularly technologically advanced intelligence, is in fact a phase of cosmic evolution, just as the appearance of intact atoms, stars, heavy elements, carbon compounds, and life are phases of cosmic evolution."

Given that the most that we can currently even hope to discover is what the impact of the Big Bang was - that we still cannot hope to discover what occured to bring about the big bang - aren't you accepting that our intelligence is a manifestation of a greater intelligence? By un-defining the word are you not actually re-defining it?

This; "Intelligence is a nebulous concept. At best,it is relative." - is real grist to this discussion. If it is relative, then our "intelligence", our "consciousness" might be seen, then, as the "intelligence" or "consciousness" of the universe. We, then, define the universe in terms, quite rightly, relative to ourselves.

Scientifically speaking, we have evidence of our intelligence from this perspective, where we do not have evidence of "intelligent" life other than ourselves - we have only a theory, untested and unproven, that such exists.
« Last Edit: 18/09/2008 13:58:59 by angst »
 

Offline stevewillie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Another view of "intelligence"
« Reply #8 on: 18/09/2008 20:00:32 »
angst

You are very perceptive. I wrote a book on all of this. Check my biography.

stevewillie
 

Offline angst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
Another view of "intelligence"
« Reply #9 on: 19/09/2008 19:51:47 »
angst

You are very perceptive. I wrote a book on all of this. Check my biography.

stevewillie

Interesting. I may well seek it out.....
 

Offline stevewillie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Another view of "intelligence"
« Reply #10 on: 19/09/2008 21:58:47 »
angst

You are very perceptive. I wrote a book on all of this. Check my biography.

stevewillie

Interesting. I may well seek it out.....

You won't find it in bookstores. It's on Amazon, including Kindle Books. Thanks.

Stevewillie
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Another view of "intelligence"
« Reply #11 on: 02/03/2009 23:59:31 »
Hi I am not a scientist but I have my own views and this is one. Scientist seem to think that things (our world) "just happened" but they cant reproduce it even though they have tried cloning and even patend seeds after modifying them so they want reproduce and still Science has not created from scratch a new human or plant species. Dont you think that if we know all the answers then "just happened" is not good enough.

Surely there is more to it than that.

After all I am so glad that I just happened to be living on a planet that has air for me to breath and water to drink and plants and some animlas for me to eat.

Intelligent design may not involve that man we call god, but then we haven't met god so that is another question, maybe God "he" is something more like the DNA, something even more minute that we haven't even come close to discovering yet that lives in everything and is the entire reason why things are what they are.

Darwin fooie, Could you ever imagine a dog turning into a goober, a kangaroo turning into a possum, an ape turning into a human, a fly turning into yet another species. Even man has to artificially produce botanical plants and flowers, they dont just do it by themselves. Except when they have been genetically modified and the pollen then spread radically across the field to wipe out the original strains but wasn't GM designed to do that?





 

lyner

  • Guest
Another view of "intelligence"
« Reply #12 on: 03/03/2009 07:54:08 »
Quote
Darwin fooie, Could you ever imagine a dog turning into a goober, a kangaroo turning into a possum, an ape turning into a human, a fly turning into yet another species.
That isn't what Darwin said, in the first place. It's certainly not what is thought 150years later - things have moved on a bit since then, you know.
Perhaps you can't 'imagine' how evolution works. I find it even harder just to offset the whole process onto someone else's shoulders but can see why it may be more attractive an idea for people who can't handle big numbers or who can't analyse evidence objectively.
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Another view of "intelligence"
« Reply #13 on: 03/03/2009 09:20:34 »
Quote
Darwin fooie, Could you ever imagine a dog turning into a goober, a kangaroo turning into a possum, an ape turning into a human, a fly turning into yet another species.
That isn't what Darwin said, in the first place. It's certainly not what is thought 150years later - things have moved on a bit since then, you know.
Perhaps you can't 'imagine' how evolution works. I find it even harder just to offset the whole process onto someone else's shoulders but can see why it may be more attractive an idea for people who can't handle big numbers or who can't analyse evidence objectively.

Spot on sophiecentaur. These are precisely the reasons for man creating gods. To explain that which was beyond comprehension.
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Another view of "intelligence"
« Reply #14 on: 10/03/2009 18:20:59 »
I find it odd that mainly scientist speak of gods. It seems that a limited imagination is divided between evolving from one species to another or god.

didnt Darwin say we evolved from apes? Didn't Darwin say that the Kangaroo decided to climb a tree and became a possum? or was that someone else who said that? Or are we just speaking of adaptation within the same species? If we are speaking of adaptation, then we humans should be catagorised in the ape species or have I got it wrong.

With stems cells,..one scientist said 'they are engineered to grow into what ever form......' yet it isn't the scientist who engineers the stem cells to grow. the stem cell just knows what to do itself. Smart stem cells. Cant anyone think that there is something that we may not have discovered yet that is all mighty, probably not a person, something we have not humanised yet.

As most scientists cant get their head around "creation" without having to include a humanised god, then maybe we should take their own words and call it "engineered" (as per stem cell reproduction).
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Another view of "intelligence"
« Reply #15 on: 10/03/2009 20:54:05 »
I actually should have said "INTELLIGENT" stem cells in the last post.
 

Offline LindaRichcreek

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Another view of "intelligence"
« Reply #16 on: 10/03/2009 21:05:40 »
Hi all. This is indeed still a very interesting topic, no matter how often the subject is addressed. My question is: When we finally determine that an AI is indeed in our midst, then what? Would it not be expedient and beneficial to already have ethics in place so that the AI is treated with autonomy and humanity? I would enjoy hearing responses, as I am sure there are many opinions out there. ???
 

lyner

  • Guest
Another view of "intelligence"
« Reply #17 on: 10/03/2009 22:52:00 »
echochartruse
Quote
I find it odd that mainly scientist speak of gods. It seems that a limited imagination is divided between evolving from one species to another or god.

Evolution and a god aren't, per se, mutually exclusive.
God existing and God NOT existing are, however, mutually exclusive situations. If, as I believe, god does not exist then evolution (as a general process) must be the explanation. I see nothing 'limited' about that view.

Your view will be 'limited' if your idea of evolution is as you state it. Read a bit of Darwin himself (or, preferably, something that has been written less than 150 years ago) and you will see that he didn't (and modern evolution theory doesn't) put it in the way that you have. If you are going to reject a theory then you should at least find out what you are rejecting.
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Another view of "intelligence"
« Reply #18 on: 11/03/2009 03:45:23 »
Sorry to all the scientific minded people out there I dont mean to offend just have my own opinion.

If 150yrs after Darwin his theory has changed then why do we refer to evolution as Darwinism still? ???
My interpretation of evolution is that all life forms came from one single life form.
Now you are saying this theory has changed! :o I am behind the times.

On the other hand maybe there is a link between one species turning into another and intelligent design. After all those 'intelligent engineered stem cells' seem to know exactly what they want to become as if they have a mind of their own. Oh and God, yea he may be the third element but i doubt anything to be just black or white, one or the other, creation or god, that seems to be very limited in imagination. I dont know if you are talking about Jesus, his father or another interpretation of what some think God is.

I think if you take out the human factor of GOD then you can understand what I am trying to say.
Just think of god as something that is in every living thing. Scientifically thinking that is.
"intelligent design" just might be correct when stem cells and something not yet discovered is added.

 "intelligent engineered stem cells" - that was the statement I heard one scientist describe them as - SO come on,
Why not intelligent design [?]
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Another view of "intelligence"
« Reply #19 on: 11/03/2009 03:47:52 »
I forgot to mention that I had read a little about Darwin. I believe he married into the Wedgewood family and that family had a great influence both politically and socially at that time.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Another view of "intelligence"
« Reply #20 on: 12/03/2009 00:11:21 »
I forgot to mention that I had read a little about Darwin. I believe he married into the Wedgewood family and that family had a great influence both politically and socially at that time.
I fail to see how that is relevant.

Darwinism is so called for the same reason Newtonian physics is so called.  It's named after the person who first researched it, or first published it at least.  Every field of science is being constantly updated - it's one of the beauties of science.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Another view of "intelligence"
« Reply #21 on: 12/03/2009 00:15:14 »
Hi all. This is indeed still a very interesting topic, no matter how often the subject is addressed. My question is: When we finally determine that an AI is indeed in our midst, then what? Would it not be expedient and beneficial to already have ethics in place so that the AI is treated with autonomy and humanity? I would enjoy hearing responses, as I am sure there are many opinions out there. ???
Now this is an interesting point.  I'm not even sure we have a good enough definition of AI just yet to handle the ethical issues around it.  I think that some systems have passed the Turing test, but there's still nothing we could truly call AI right now.  Will we be prepared?  I don't know, but it will be interesting finding out!
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Another view of "intelligence"
« Reply #22 on: 12/03/2009 07:29:31 »
I forgot to mention that I had read a little about Darwin. I believe he married into the Wedgewood family and that family had a great influence both politically and socially at that time.
Quote
I fail to see how that is relevant.
Then you dont think politics can influence science? or promote one persons theory ove another?..
How society can influence the way we think?...

If people are talking about ID then that is all that matters, it really doesn't matter if some science hasn't caught up with the idea.

ID may be just another link to discovering something else, who knows.

 

Offline MonikaS

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
Another view of "intelligence"
« Reply #23 on: 12/03/2009 15:23:20 »
didnt Darwin say we evolved from apes? Didn't Darwin say that the Kangaroo decided to climb a tree and became a possum? or was that someone else who said that? Or are we just speaking of adaptation within the same species? If we are speaking of adaptation, then we humans should be catagorised in the ape species or have I got it wrong.
No Darwin didn't said that, he said that modern day apes and humans have a common ancestor, just as all marsupials have a common ancestor. Going back in time all living beings including plants have a common ancestor. Humans and great apes belong to the family Hominidae, so basically we're cousins. I've never felt anything wrong with that, in fact when I watch them in the zoo or watch documentaries I feel the connection.

A long long time ago evolution started. What you apparently fail to grasp is that evolution is both chance and directional. Mutations happen by chance, selection selects for traits that are useful for survival or the species. There is no need to introduce an intelligent designer.


On the other hand maybe there is a link between one species turning into another and intelligent design. After all those 'intelligent engineered stem cells' seem to know exactly what they want to become as if they have a mind of their own. Oh and God, yea he may be the third element but i doubt anything to be just black or white, one or the other, creation or god, that seems to be very limited in imagination. I dont know if you are talking about Jesus, his father or another interpretation of what some think God is.

With an intelligent designer you introduce another element, one that can't be scientifically tested. Scientists often use expressions that seem to infer a designer, which has become very dangerous, because ID proponents jump to conclusions, just like you did.
ID limits scienctific imagination, as soon as there is something unexplainable, creationism tells us "<insert deity of choice here> did it", so why do more research.
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Another view of "intelligence"
« Reply #24 on: 12/03/2009 20:44:34 »
So let me get this right we all came from one species and that just happened due to the environment that one species was in at the time that caused it to develop differently from the next. Do I have it right? Is that what the theory of evolution is based on?

Much like "intelligent Stems cells"

So could you extend the "Theory of Evolution" here please to explain why stem cells develop differently depending on the environment.

I chose intelligent stem cells as we can actually see the process in our own time and we dont have to wait millions of yrs.

It just helps me understand the other theory.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Another view of "intelligence"
« Reply #24 on: 12/03/2009 20:44:34 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums