On 4/15/07, Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Do you think a dog has a good understanding of your daily activities? How about a field mouse? A cyanobacterium?
I don't think so. However, when we understand "intelligence" well enough to build an AGI, we will be able to understand in principle how a superhuman intelligence works, though we cannot predict or explain its individual actions.
Why should the current status quo be the crown of evolutionary infoprocessing achievement?
Did I suggest that it should be the case? I thought I said the opposite in my message. However, to say "intelligence will continue to evolve" and "there will be a moment after which things will completely go beyond our understanding" are not the same. Pei ----- 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=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
