Adding onto the catalogue of specific sub-concepts of intelligence, we can identify not only
raw intelligence = goal-achieving power efficient intelligence = goal-achieving power per unit of computational resources adaptive intelligence = ability to achieve goals newly presented to the system, not known to the system or its creators at the time of its creation [the wording could probably be improved] Shane wants to define intelligence as what I here call raw intelligence Pei and Mark Waser want to define intelligence as what I here call adaptive intelligence What is interesting to me is not which one of these various people want to identify with the NL term "intelligence", but rather the relationships between the different types of intelligence. For example, many of us seem to support the conjecture that adaptive intelligence is necessary for efficient intelligence -- Ben G On 5/20/07, Benjamin Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/20/07, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > OK, it sounds much better than your previous descriptions to me > (though there are still issues which I'd rather not discuss now). Much of our disagreement seems just to be about what goes in the def'n of intelligence and what goes in theorems about the properties required by intelligence. Which then largely becomes a matter of taste. But how about systems that cannot learn at all but have strong > built-in capability and efficiency (within certain domains)? Will you > say that they are intelligent but not too much, or not intelligent at > all? > I would say that they do have intelligence. But I would conjecture that there are strict limits to how much efficient intelligence such systems can have. -- 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
