Mike, If the difference is just "innate ability vs. acquired ability", we don't need two types of intelligence. Many AGI models, including NARS, can handle both consistently.
Pei On 5/15/07, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Pei, Here are some references. You can Google "divergent" vs "convergent." Do note that I am NOT suggesting these definitions are adequate, merely that Psychology has long identified two different kinds of intelligence, and broadly I think that's right, and yes, conforms fairly neatly with the distinction between AI vs AGI, which also still needs properly to be defined. And note the definition of "Fluid intelligence": Fluid Intelligence is: "a natural ability which is not dependant on acquired knowledge" Now whose definition does that sound like? I actually think that my dual definition suggestion is extremely important - both for AGI and for the advancement of human intelligence, (and this is an area in which I've done a lot of work). So I'm disappointed you didn't see that importance - but, of course, everyone has, and is entitled to, a different opinion. "Fluid intelligence is tied to biology. It is defined as our "on-the-spot reasoning ability, a skill not basically dependant on our experience." (Belsky, 1990, p. 125) Belsky (1990) indicates this type of intelligence is active when the central nervous system (CNS) is at its physiological peak." http://www.psych.ualberta.ca/~mike/Pearl_Street/OldDictionary/F/fluid_intelligence.html "Crystallized intelligence can be defined as "the extent to which a person has absorbed the content of culture."(Belsky, 1990, p. 125) It is the store of knowledge or information that a given society has accumulated over time." http://www.psych.ualberta.ca/~mike/Pearl_Street/OldDictionary/C/crystallized_intelligence.html Fluid Intelligence is: "a natural ability which is not dependant on acquired knowledge" Crystallized Intelligence is: "ability dependent on acquired knowledge" Dowling College http://www.dowling.edu/faculty/cperring/woods.htm In a report by Thomas G. Stidht - Applied behavior & Cognitive sciences Inc the difference between fluid and crystallized intelligence is discussed. "Cattell and various collaborators, and later many independent investigators, made the distinction between "fluid intelligence" and "crystallized intelligence." "Cattell (1983) states, "Fluid intelligence is involved in tests that have very little cultural content, whereas crystallized intelligence loads abilities that have obviously been acquired, such as verbal and numerical ability, mechanical aptitude, social skills, and so on." "The age curve of these two abilities is quite different. They both increase up to the age of about 15 or 16, and slightly thereafter, to the early 20s perhaps. But thereafter fluid intelligence steadily declines whereas crystallized intelligence stays high" http://www.nald.ca/fulltext/beyond/beyond17.htm From a West Virginia University article: "Fluid intelligence is tied to biology and deals with an individual's ability to make on-the-spot decisions that are not dependent on experience. Crystallized intelligence is the amount of information a person has absorbed and accumulated from a society's culture over time." West Virginia University http://www.newswise.com/articles/2001/9/AGING.WVU.html "Fluid intelligence (also called "native mental ability") is the information processing system. It refers to the ability to think and reason. It includes the speed with which information can be analyzed, and also includes attention and memory capacity." "Crystallized intelligence is accumulated information and vocabulary acquired from school and everyday life. It also encompasses the application of skills and knowledge to solving problems." "Many studies have shown that fluid intelligence is more likely to decline with age than crystallized intelligence. In fact, crystallized intelligence may continue to improve with age. Many people continue to gain expertise and skills in particular areas throughout life." Novartis Foundation for Gerontology http://www.healthandage.com/html/min/afar/content/other6_1.htm Here's a simple example that illustrates the difference between fluid and crystallized intelligence. "Scientists like to compare these two kinds of intelligences to a computer. Think of Fluid Intelligence as the computer hardware (the processing chip, all the wires, and the other electronic and mechanical parts) which is like the person's brain and central nervous system. Now think of Crystallized Intelligence as the computer software (programs that control the computer) which is the person's strategies. Finally think of the data stored inside the computer as an individual's lifetime of accumulated knowledge." http://www.nknu.edu.tw/~adult/newspaper/no12/articl7e.htm Search Criteria: "crystallized intelligence" "fluid intelligence" Crystallized Intelligence: - Results from education, experience and acculturation. - Measured with tests of verbal comprehension, vocabulary and numerical skill." http://www.hope.ac.uk/psycho/Psy%20Web%20page/Undergraduate/yearthree/Developmental/5 Fluid Intelligence: - Ability to adjust one's thinking to unfamiliar situations. - Measured through performance on tests that involve solving new problems. http://www.hope.ac.uk/psycho/Psy%20Web%20page/Undergraduate/yearthree/Developmental/6----- Original Message ----- From: "Pei Wang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:17 AM Subject: Re: [agi] definitions of intelligence, again?! > 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/?&; > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: > 269.7.0/804 - Release Date: 14/05/2007 16:46 > > ----- 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
