Hi Mike, My points about the pitfalls of theorizing about intelligence apply to any and all humans who would attempt it - meaning, it's not necessary to characterize AI folks in one way or another. There are any number of aspects of intelligence we could highlight that pose a challenge to orthodox models of intelligence, but the bigger point is that there are fundamental limits to the ability of an intelligence to observe itself, in exactly the same way that an eye cannot see itself.
Consciousness and intelligence are present in every possible act of contemplation, so it is impossible to gain a vantage point of intelligence from outside of it. And that's exactly what we pretend to do when we conceptualize it within an artificial construct. This is the principle conceit of AI, that we can understand intelligence in an objective way, and model it well enough to reproduce by design. Terren --- On Tue, 7/1/08, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Terren:It's to make the larger point that we may be so > immersed in our own > conceptualizations of intelligence - particularly because > we live in our > models and draw on our own experience and introspection to > elaborate them - > that we may have tunnel vision about the possibilities for > better or > different models. Or, we may take for granted huge swaths > of what makes us > so smart, because it's so familiar, or below the radar > of our conscious > awareness, that it doesn't even occur to us to reflect > on it. > > No 2 is more relevant - AI-ers don't seem to introspect > much. It's an irony > that the way AI-ers think when creating a program bears v. > little > resemblance to the way programmed computers think. (Matt > started to broach > this when he talked a while back of computer programming as > an art). But > AI-ers seem to have no interest in the discrepancy - which > again is ironic, > because analysing it would surely help them with their > programming as well > as the small matter of understanding how general > intelligence actually > works. > > In fact - I just looked - there is a longstanding field on > psychology of > programming. But it seems to share the deficiency of > psychology and > cognitive science generally which is : no study of the > stream-of-conscious-thought, especially conscious > problemsolving. The only > AI figure I know who did take some interest here was > Herbert Simon who > helped establish the use of verbal protocols. > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > http://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
