Le 25-nov.-05, à 07:16, Kim Jones a écrit :

You cannot affect your intelligence. You are stuck with it. It is the measure of the speed at which neurons in your brain fire and receive impulses.

From your post I see we agree on many things and I don't need to add comments, except on this quoted sentence and similar below. I don't think we are stuck with our intelligence (in the general sense which we are opposing to competence). Actually I would say that the speed of processing is more on the side of competence than intelligence (although I.J. Good makes an interesting analysis of "free-will" in term of processing speed). Remember I am used to get conversation in Platonia with Platonic machine which in general are very slow (because there is no need to optimize them given that in Platonia we have "all the time"). I think intelligence, again in that large sense of just an ability of doubting, is very close to courage, and is perhaps just a matter of attitude. I do think people can get it in one second, but also to loose it in one second. Generally this happens after some shock, like when a people you care about dies or when yourself have some accident or anything which can quickly make fragile some of your oldest prejudice.

Competence is dynamic / intelligence is a frozen quantity of something

Same remark. I do think that "intelligence" is the normal state of any (naive) self-introspective machine. Pain, disease, problematic parents, problematic social neighborhoods, lack of education etc. all those rather banal life circumstances can destroy it for a time. And the same things can also re-awake it (if that is still english).

My favorite definition of ...
... is that thing that once you give it/he/she/e a name or a description, then you can say "hello" to the catastrophes ....

Ain't it "the truth"!

This is also surely because "the truth" is a con job. Truth or *identity* - which is what you are talking about here - is often the place at which all movement in thinking ceases. Once you name something you have slapped a label on it and labels tend to be sticky things in the warm, spongey human brain.

Yes. And the story of humanity is full of examples. Now it is hard, at least for me, not to point toward the basic theorems of mathematical logic in this setting. Tarski theorem: sound löbian machines cannot name their truth predicate. Gödel's incompleteness theorem: sound lobian machine cannot prove their own consistency. Now, the lobian machines, which are just the self-referentially correct machine having enough introspective power, can prove their Godel's theorem, and so they can know that if they are consistent they can be inconsistent, and that is a logical reason for doubting, and that's why I think to be intelligent is the natural state of a machine, and thus loosing that intelligence is (alas) also natural. It is like to be alive: to be alive *is* to be able to die.

Dt -> DBf, to sum up. And that formula characterizes the multiverse where all transient observer-moment can reach dead-ends. Will come back to this.

Scientists should stay well clear of truth. Mathematicians own it.

A scientist has the right to search for the truth, and even to say so. But he can never be sure it owns it. I'm not sure mathematicians own it, except perhaps for a tiny part of math, but then everyone owns that part (except highly disabled person).



Reply via email to