On 5/20/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Seems to me like you're going through *a lot* of effort for the same effect + a lot of confusion You "conjecture that highly efficiently intelligent systems will necessarily possess intense consciousness and self-understanding". Isn't "possess intense consciousness and self-understanding" exactly the same as learn?
They are not the same thing, although both are apparently necessary to achieve efficient intelligence So aren't you just saying that "highly efficiently intelligent systems will
necessarily" learn? And why don't we just simplify "highly efficiently intelligent" as intelligent -- and just, by fiat, declare that anything that isn't "highly efficiently intelligent" is merely (at best) reflexively functional.
You're just expressing a different taste in mapping formal definitions onto English phrases. I really don't think it matters what mapping you choose, so long as the mapping is defined clearly... However, I am coming to the opinion that mapping any formal definition into the NL term "intelligence" is a political error...
From now on maybe I will use
raw intelligence = complexity of goals achievable efficient intelligence = sum of (goal complexity)/(resources required to achieve goal) and not try to attach any single formal definition to the obviously highly ambiguous NL term "intelligence" .. -- Ben G -- Ben ----- 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
