Robert Wensman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: For an intelligence to know what is possible actions it must model those and think about those internally, and model that beahavior, and I would argue that all intelligence is about the behavior that the internal cognition brings. You cant really have an intelligence I dont believe without behaviour, can you have behaviour without some form of intelligence?
The simple act of talking and responding to a question is action and behavior, and without it, you cant realy determine if something is intelligent or not. Memes - It looks like the meme people want to somehow shoehorn "knowledge" into being a "meme" or memeplex A meme ( IPA: /mi¢°m/) is a unit of cultural information that propagates from one mind to another as a theoretical unit of cultural evolution and diffusion, analogous to the way a gene propagates from one organism to another as a unit of genetic information and evolution. First it says memes are a "cultural unit" but then go on to encompass just about all types of information / knowledge. A generic "information unit" sounds better, and doesnt have to have the restrictions and/or extra effects that a meme seems to have. Otherwise welcome to the AGI group, and maybe we can expound on some of the other thoughts you have. James Thanks. Well, I agree that "information unit" would work well also. However, to some degree I feel that the "extra effects" of meme are beneficial, even though you cannot interpret those extra effects litterally. Using "meme" could emphasize that they are created at random in an evolutionary process, or at least that there is some distributed process that creates them, which is exactly what I want. Information unit on the other hand is more general, and could include hand-crafted code made by some programmer, or data inserted in an expert system. Also I like meme because it is one word, as opposed to two in "information unit". I believe it is better to use short words for the most common things we want to express. Wether it "sounds good" or not I dont know. Beeing swede it sounds pretty ok to me, but maybe it sounds different to people with other background. Hmm, if meme = information unit, I am fine with it. If it doesnt, a nice simple enumerated list of "what else" it entails would be useful. If we cant interpret them then I dont think they are useful. Even with the meme it sounds like you still have the basic information unit, and the memes are on top of that. Mutating can also be done as an action without necessarily creating a meme for it. I support some form of mutation though Im not sure exactly what yours entails. Meme 'sounds' fine, but I dont want to create an extra vocabulary unless needed, we already have to many vague terms. I believe something could act intelligently without actually beeing intelligent. Say for example that we program a robot to perform a lot of hard coded random actions, even without using any sensory data. Even if incredibly (actually there arent words strong enough) unlikely, there is a chance that such a robot might go to work and act as a seemingly intelligent employee of some company during an entire day. However we would know it is not intelligent. I dunno really, I'm of the other mind, if I see something acting intelligently, it picks up the board, takes it over, cuts it in half and nails it to another one, forming a frame, then I would have to conclude from those small actions that it IS intelligent. Now its backend code may be entirely random, or something soo complex that I dont understand it at all, but it is acting in an intelligent manner. Also, I would say that a lot of other system classes are not defined based on their actual "actions". For example, we could determine wether an object is an airplane even without actually seeing it fly. What we do is to study its structure, and judge wether it according to our understanding has a capability to fly in the way airplanes do. Ahh that analogy doesnt quite work though, becuase of the new-fangled designs of aircraft many of them dont 'look' like an airplane. I would say a closer analogy to intelligence would be definer something as having the ability to fly. I look at an airplane and say yes it can fly, and a bird as well, but then I see an odd beetle on the ground, and say no, it cant fly... but it unfolds its hidden wings and can fly as well... After seeing the action I woudl have to say it is a flier. I agree however that this is troublesome for general intelligence, because turing completeness causes a lot of different definitions to be computationally equivalent, thus there is no standardized language in which to describe what is general intelligence. For airplanes it is simple, because 3D pictures and 2D drawings are quite straightforward. Maybe this will be easier once we have an example of working AGI. There is a point though, in that passive AGI systems that just think think think, but doesnt do anything useful would be of little use :-). -Well the further point is, how could you Tell that an AGI system that was not acting, was thinking? If there are no actions, then the only thing you can see is CPU usage. And I dont think you can determine intelligence from CPU usage. It needs at the minimum some way too communicate, at least to tell you some of its internal structure to prove its doign anything intelligent. The same is true with humans, though a bit more is there. When a person is in a coma/brain dead all we have to go by is brain scans / showing activity in certain areas. But at times we cannot tell wether the brain is randomly firing neurons, or it is doign real thought processes. We may better be able to manage those distinctions in the future, but we mainly regard humans intelligence as their ability to do and act. Also you might talk with YKY and join the other AGI list/ group. Regards /Robert Wensman _______________________________________ James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com Looking for something... --------------------------------- Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. --------------------------------- 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/?&; _______________________________________ James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com Looking for something... --------------------------------- Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection. ----- 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=e9e40a7e
