Hi Jason, Hi Skeletori,
A short comment, on Jason's comment on Skeletori.
A deeper question is what is the upper limit to intelligence? I
haven't yet mentioned the role of memory in this process. I think
intelligence is bound by the complexity of the environment. From
within the computer, new, more complex environments can be created.
(Just think how much more complex our present day environment is
than 200 years ago), however the ultimate limit of the complexity of
the environment that can be rendered depends on the amount of memory
available to represent that environment. Evolution to this point
has leveraged the complexity of the physical universe and the
presence of other evolved organisms to create complex fitness tests,
but evolution would hit a wall if it reached a point where DNA
molecules couldn't get any longer.
I would distinguish intelligence and competence;
I would define intelligence by an amount of self-introspection
ability. In that case the singularity belongs to the past, with the
discovery of "Löbian machine", that is universal machine knowing that
their are universal.
This makes all humans intelligent, as far as they have the courage and
motivation to introspect themselves enough, and be aware of the
unnameability of truth and correctness. As far as you are (luckily)
'correct', Löbian machine like PA or ZF are as intelligent than you
and me, despite having different knowledge (even different
arithmetical knowledge).
I would define competence by the inclusiveness of the classes of
(partial) computable functions recognizable by the the machine when in
its inference inductive mode (searching programs for matching a
sequence of <input-output> presented to it in any order).
Then the notion of singularity points makes no sense, because two
inference machines (cooperating or not!) are uncomputably more
competent than a unique machine (Blum and Blum non-union theorem(*)).
Also machines doing errors are also uncomputably more competent,
machines changing their mind (the synthesized program) are also
uncomputably more competent 5case and Smith(*).
Competence has a negative feedback on (some) intelligent machine. It
may even lead to the loss of Lobianity, making the machine "idiotic",
feeling superior, thinking at the place of others, egocentric, and
eventually inconsistent.
Competence develops from intelligence, but intelligence is restrained
by competence. This leads to complex chaotic loops.
Competence can be evaluated by test, exams, etc.
Intelligence cannot.
I think that intelligence entails both consciousness and free-will.
Bruno
(*) see the precise references in my URL (thesis's bibliography).
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
