Entity in question is any particle in the universe.
OK. Said particle either has a fixed velocity and direction or is
stationary.
States that it is trying to avoid: collision with its antiparticle.
No, the particle is not "trying" to do anything.
Size of space containing all world-states that the entity can successfully
reach is then almost all of the states of the universe except the
extremely rare ones in which it hits an antiparticle.
No, the particle is limited to world states where it continues upon it's
trajectory (or remains stationary) or where it is acted upon by something
else. Further, it cannot avoid it's trajectory (or remaining stationary)
nor being acted upon by outside forces. The two sets of world states are
identical. It's intelligence is therefore zero.
Conclusion: Intelligence of chosen particle = pretty damn big.
Nope. Zero.
but then again, do I notice an evaluation problem here? How are you going
to count the number of successful states I can reach?
Yes, the evaluation problem is thorny. Obviously, what you're going to have
to do is limit your evaluation to a reduced set of world states (which then,
obviously, can reduce accuracy). I don't believe, though, that *any*
evaluation of intelligence is going to overcome this problem.
And are you sure, now, before you work out all the math, that my
'waser-intelligence' (W) is higher than the W for that there pesky
particle trying to avoid its antiparticle?
Well . . . . I did all the math necessary above and it was quite simple for
the particle. Since I am sure that you can attain states not on your
current trajectory and avoid states which are on your current trajectory
(and thus, don't have a zero intelligence) -- Yes, I am quite sure that your
intelligence is higher than that of that pesky particle (whom *you* are
trying to ascribe goals to . . . . :-)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Loosemore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence
Mark Waser wrote:
On 4/26/07, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can you point to an objective definition that is clear about which
things are more intelligent than others, and which does not
accidentally
include things that manifestly conflict with the commonsense
definition
(by false negatives or false positives)?
Wow. The silence was deafening after my last attempt . . . .
How about if I rephrase slightly dufferently as:
Intelligence is
the size of the space containing all world-states that the entity can
successfully reach
minus
the size of the space containing all world-states that the entity
cannot successfully avoid.
Try:
Entity in question is any particle in the universe.
States that it is trying to avoid: collision with its antiparticle.
Size of space containing all world-states that the entity can successfully
reach is then almost all of the states of the universe except the
extremely rare ones in which it hits an antiparticle.
Size of the space containing all world-states that the entity cannot
successfully avoid: only the extremely rare ones in which it hits an
antiparticle.
Conclusion: Intelligence of chosen particle = pretty damn big.
Bet it would be smarter than me.... but then again, do I notice an
evaluation problem here? How are you going to count the number of
successful states I can reach? And are you sure, now, before you work out
all the math, that my 'waser-intelligence' (W) is higher than the W for
that there pesky particle trying to avoid its antiparticle?
Richard Loosemore
-----
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/?&;
-----
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
