On 5/15/07, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am suggesting that there are two main types of intelligence - and humans have both. "Simulating the human mind" isn't a definition of either of those types, or intelligence, period.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
The two main types of intelligence have long been given names by mainstream pyschology - "convergent" or "crystallised" .vs "divergent" or "fluid" intelligence. And these two types also seem very clearly to me to identify and be more or less the same as the distinction between AI and AGI. There is a very long tradition here, and the parallelism seems obvious.
Can you give me a reference? I'm not familiar with this distinction.
But neither of these types have yet been given proper, adequate definitions by Psychology, and nor indeed has "intelligence" generally. That, I am suggesting, is the task. For the philosophy of AI - and this IS a discussion of philosophy - to ignore Psychology and human intelligence, and the very extensive work already done here, including on creativity - doesn't seem v. wise, given that AI/AGI still haven't got to square one in the attempt either to emulate or to satisfactorily define human-level "fluid", "adaptive" intelligence.
I don't think in this discussion anyone has suggested to ignore psychology. The problem is in which level we want to follow psychology when doing AGI. Using forgetting as an example, do we want an AGI system to have the exact forgetting rate as an average human being? Or we only want it to have the cognitive function of forgetting? Or we judge forgetting as an undesired human weakness, and let the system to remember everything? Different opinions here come from the different definitions of "intelligence" discussed in my paper. 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
