But I don't see "vulnerability to Searle's pathology" as a flaw in my
definition of intelligence...
The system {Searle + rulebook} **is** intelligent but not efficiently
intelligent
I conjecture that highly efficiently intelligent systems will necessarily
possess intense consciousness and self-understanding. (Because I think that
intense consciousness and self-understanding result from certain cognitive
structures and dynamics, that I think are necessary for achieving efficient
intelligence.)
I don't think that high intelligence in principle implies intense
consciousness or self-understanding...
The reason this confuses people is that
intelligence {roughly =} efficient intelligence
for any real systems we have ever seen or know how to construct. The only
intelligent but not efficiently intelligent systems we can talk about are
hypothetical ones like {Searle+rulebook} or AIXI or AIXItl ...
-- Ben G
On 5/20/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rough approximations maybe . . . . but you yourself have now pointed out
that your definition is vulnerable to Searle's pathology (which is even
simpler than the infinite AIXI effect :-)
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Benjamin Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*To:* [email protected]
*Sent:* Sunday, May 20, 2007 3:00 PM
*Subject:* Re: [agi] Relationship btw consciousness and intelligence
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/?&;
------------------------------
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
