Hi Stan, On 12/20/2007 07:44 PM,, Stan Nilsen wrote: > > I understand that it's all uphill to defy the obvious. For the record, today I do believe that intelligence "way beyond" human intelligence is not possible.
I understand that this is your belief. I was trying to challenge you to make a strong case that it is in fact *likely* to be true (rather than just merely possible that it's true), which I do not believe you have done. I think you mostly just stated what you would like to be the case -- or what you intuit to be the case (there is rarely much of a difference) -- and then talked of the consequences that might follow *if* it were the case. I'm still a little unsure what exactly you mean when you say "intelligence 'way beyond' human intelligence is not possible'. Take my example of an intelligence that could in seconds recreate all known mathematics, and also all the untaken paths that mathematicians could have gone down but didn't (*yet*). It seems to me you have one of two responses to this scenario: (1) you might assert that this it could never happen because it is not possible (please elaborate if so); or (2) you might believe that it is possible and could happen, but that it would not qualify as 'way beyond' human intelligence (please elaborate if so). Which is it? Or is there another alternative? > For the moment, do I say anything new with the following example? I believe it contains the essence of my argument about intelligence. > > A simple example: > Problem: find the optimal speed limit of a specific highway. > > Who is able to judge what the optimal is? Optimality is always relative to some criteria. Until the criteria are fixed, any answer is akin to answering "what is the optimal quuz of fah?" No answer is correct because no answer is wrong -- or all are right or all wrong. > In this case, would a "simpleton" have as good an answer? It depends on the criteria. For some criteria, a simpleton has sufficient ability to answer optimally. For example, if the optimal limit is defined in terms of its closeness to 42 MPH, we can all determine the optimal speed limit. > Perhaps the simple says, the limit is "how fast you want to go." And that is certainly the optimal solution according to some criteria. Just as certainly, it is absolutely wrong according to other criteria (e.g., minimization of accidents). As long the criteria are unspecified, there can of course be disagreement. > The 100,000 strong intellect may gyrate through many deep thoughts and come back with 47.8 miles per hour as the best speed limit to establish. Wouldn't it be interesting to see how this number was derived? And, better still, would another 100K rated intellect come up with exactly the same number? If given more time, would the 100K rated intellects eventually agree? > My belief is that they will not agree. This is life, the thing we model. Reality *is* messy, and supreme intellects might come to different answers based on different criteria for optimality, but that isn't an argument that there can be no phase transition in intelligence or that greater intelligence is not useful for many questions and problems. Is the point of the question to suggest that because you think that question might not benefit from greater intelligence, that you believe most questions will not benefit from greater intelligence? Even if that were the case, it would have no bearing at all on whether greater intelligence is possible, only whether it is desirable. You seem to be arguing that it's not possible, not that it's possible but pointless. And I would argue that if super-intelligence were good for nothing other than trivialities like abolishing natural death, developing ubiquitous near-free energy technologies, designing ships to the stars, etc., it would still be worthwhile. Do you think that greater intelligence is of no benefit in achieving these ends? > Lastly, why would you point to William James Sidis as a great intelligence. If anything, his life appears to support my case - that is, he was brilliant as a youth but didn't manage any better in life than the average man. Could it be because life doesn't play better when deep thinking is applied? I used Sidis as an example of great intelligence because he was a person of great intelligence, regardless of anything else he may have been. Granted, we didn't get to see what he could have become or what great discoveries he might have had in him, but it certainly wasn't because he lacked intelligence. For the record, I believe his later life was primarily determined by the circus freakshow character of his early life and the relentlessness with which the media (and the minds they served) tore him down and tried to humiliate him. It doesn't really matter though, as the particular example is irrelevant, and von Neumann serves the purpose just fine. -joseph ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=78315021-4acf7d
