Just a quick note that when you claim "dogs are less intelligent than us" depends upon how you define intelligence. Obviously I see your meaning. However they have superior perceptive intelligence for smells, and have are at least our equals in spatial intelligence (tracking motion etc).
Mike A On 3/15/16, Felipe Carmona Miquilini <[email protected]> wrote: > I've improved my own mental modules about conscience and intelligence, and > I would like to share them with you, maybe you could help me, giving me > even more perspectives, so here we go! > Following are 4 things which I have been thinking for a while: > > 1 - Conscience strives for adaptability. The most its state is coherent > with the environment, the better its owner will survive. > > 2 - What every thought has in common is the purpose to improve the > representation of a given domain from the conscience state cited above - > Our thoughts make it by accessing, changing and creating new > models/abstractions. It is useful to think about domains because our > conscience can divide the challenge of representing the environment, using > chunks that make sense for its adaptability. > > 3 - In this scenario, intelligence is how well the conscience is adapted to > the environment, e.g. it makes sense to say that the dogs are less > intelligent than us, because our conscience are better adapted than theirs > in the environment the person who are saying it are (maybe a hectic human > city). > > 4 - Changing the environment is a way to adapt. Changing the environment > for better adaptability can be considered a high level of consciousness, > because its models are so "sharp" that can be used to anticipate the > environment, and change it. We do it with medicine, engineering, while > talking, etc... > > Now a conclusion, which I would like you to put more ideas related to it. > > The key aspect is the World > If we think about the conscience as a mechanism which strives for > adaptability, then think about it: Physicists and Mathematicians have > generally better abstract models in the means of understanding the nature. > Their thoughts tend to be more accurate and based on logic and empiric > facts concerning the nature. So, we could suggest that Mathematicians are > by definition more conscious than Layers, Actors, etc... Which is not > necessarily true, because a Business man, can be considered more important > or more aware about its business than a mathematician, or anyone else, for > instance... This implies that the world is more relevant than the > "conscious entity" itself. What I mean is, creating a great model about the > world an "Artificial Conscience" would act at is the right answer to > achieve real AGI... and it makes the problem much easier to deal with... > > A simple ERP system, for instance, can be considered an extension of a > sharp conscience - which begins in a banal user - while this very ERP > system is stupid as a rock when the subject is girls, for instance... The G > from AGI is what really concern us. What is General? We have to define > General mathematically to beautifully solve the problem. > > -- > Felipe Carmona Miquilini > > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11943661-d9279dae > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
