Sure, that's fine...
I mean: I have given a mathematical definition before, so all these verbal
paraphrases
should be viewed as rough approximations anyway...
On 5/20/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Allow me to paraphrase . . . .
Something is intelligent if it is functional over a wide variety of
complex goals.
Is that a reasonable shot at your definition?
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Benjamin Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*To:* [email protected]
*Sent:* Sunday, May 20, 2007 2:41 PM
*Subject:* Re: [agi] Relationship btw consciousness and intelligence
Intelligence, to me, is the ability to achieve complex goals...
This is one way of being functional.... a paperclip though is very
functional yet not very intelligent...
ben g
On 5/20/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Sure... I prefer to define intelligence in terms of behavioral
> functionality rather than internal properties, but you are free to define it
> differently ;-)
>
> I wouldn't call learning/adaptability an internal(-only) property . . .
> .
>
> >> I note that if the Chinese language changes over time, then the
> {Searle + rulebook} system will rapidly become less intelligent in this
> context !!!!
> See. Now this indicates the funkiness of your definition . . . .
> Replace intelligent with functional and it makes a lot more sense.
>
> Actually, that raises a good question -- What is the difference between
> your "intelligent" and your "functional"?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Benjamin Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 20, 2007 2:11 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [agi] Relationship btw consciousness and intelligence
>
>
> Sure... I prefer to define intelligence in terms of behavioral
> functionality rather than internal properties, but you are free to define it
> differently ;-)
>
> I note that if the Chinese language changes over time, then the {Searle
> + rulebook} system will rapidly become less intelligent in this context !!!!
>
>
> ben g
>
> On 5/20/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I liked most of your points, but . . . .
> >
> > >> However, Searle's example is pathological in the sense that it
> > posits *a system with a high degree of intelligence* associated with a
> > functionality that is NOT associated with any intensity-of-consciousness.
> > But I suggest that this pathology is due to the unrealistically large amount
> > of computing resources that the rulebook requires.
> >
> > Not by my definition of intelligence (which requires
> > learning/adaptation).
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Benjamin Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > *To:* [email protected]
> > *Sent:* Sunday, May 20, 2007 1:24 PM
> > *Subject:* [agi] Relationship btw consciousness and intelligence
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Someone emailed me recently about Searle's Chinese Room argument,
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
> >
> > a topic that normally bores me to tears, but it occurred to me that
> > part of my reply might be of interest to some
> > on this list, because it pertains to the more general issue of the
> > relationship btw consciousness and intelligence.
> >
> > It also ties in with the importance of thinking about "efficient
> > intelligence" rather than just raw intelligence, as
> > discussed in the recent thread on definitions of intelligence.
> >
> > Here is the relevant part of my reply about Searle:
> >
> > ****
> > However, a key point is: The scenario Searle describes is likely not
> > physically possible, due to the unrealistically large size of the rulebook.
> > The structures that we associate with intelligence (will, focused awareness,
> > etc.) in a human context, all come out of the need to do intelligent
> > processing within modest space and time requirements.
> >
> > So when we say we feel like the {Searle+rulebook} system isn't really
> > understanding Chinese, what we mean is: It isn't understanding Chinese
> > according to the methods we are used to, which are methods adapted to deal
> > with modest space and time resources.
> >
> > This ties in with the relationship btw intensity-of-consciousness and
> > degree-of-intelligence. In real life, these seem often to be tied together,
> > because the cognitive structures that correlate with intensity of
> > consciousness are useful ones for achieving intelligent behaviors.
> >
> > However, Searle's example is pathological in the sense that it posits
> > a system with a high degree of intelligence associated with a functionality
> > that is NOT associated with any intensity-of-consciousness. But I suggest
> > that this pathology is due to the unrealistically large amount of computing
> > resources that the rulebook requires.
> >
> > I.e., it is finitude of resources that causes intelligence and
> > intensity-of-consciousness to be correlated. The fact that this correlation
> > breaks in a pathological, physically-impossible case that requires
> > dramatically much resources, doesn't mean too much...
> > ****
> >
> > Note that I write about intensity of consciousness rather than
> > presence of consciousness. I tend toward panpsychism but I do accept that
> > "while all animals are conscious, some animals are more conscious than
> > others" (to pervert Orwell). I have elaborated on this perspective
> > considerably in The Hidden Pattern.
> >
> > -- Ben G
> > ------------------------------
> > 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/?&;
> >
>
> ------------------------------
> 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/?&;
>
------------------------------
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/?&;
-----
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
