On Apr 15, 11:21 pm, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> I agree with the above and pushing the idea further has led me to the
> conclusion that intelligence is only relative to an environment. If you
> consider Hume's argument that induction cannot be justified - yet it is
> the basis of all our beliefs - you are led to wonder whether humans have
> "general intelligence".  Don't we really just have intelligence in this
> particular world with it's regularities and "natural kinds"?  Our
> "general intelligence" allows us to see and manipulate objects - but not
> quantum fields or space-time.

Hi, and I agree even more:
without really proposing to identify 'intelligence' (from 'inter-lego' Lat,
*to read between the words, not fixed on the ONE meaning of them we are used
*to)
I come to the word *'we' *(several times asked on this list: who does it
refer to?)
and consider it the bunch of self-reflective gods in discussion and in
concert,
(in Bruno's words *ASSUMED)*  - only within*THIS 'environment* (World,
Universe)
*without actual **assumptions of teleportation or being copied (?) into
other 'environments, *
of which we have no knowledge (not even imagination)
and we are PRODUCTS (whatever that may mean) of *this* very environment -
we can think (being 'intelligent' also) only *within this environment *
**
*A*s Brent put it:
>"...this particular world with it's regularities and "netural kinds"..."<

into which I would include also our (human) ideas of "quantum fields or
space-time"
in congruence with Skeletori:
>>..."I think intelligence in the context of a particular world requires
acting within that world."...<<

And so is our logic (whichever we consider). Including  all "our" *illogical,
impossible, or even *
*supernatural,* all extensions to our limitations within THIS environment
even if called "artificial",
"digital", or else.
We are "prisoners" of this world. No way to escape.
((With my wife's addition of the "ZOOKEEPERS" - 'aliens' - with the
assumption of getting
ideas, bases for religions and sciences to keep us happy - or miserable))

JohnM







On 4/16/10, Skeletori <sami.per...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, I'm trying to move this to the intelligence thread.
>
> On Apr 15, 11:21 pm, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> > I agree with the above and pushing the idea further has led me to the
> > conclusion that intelligence is only relative to an environment. If you
> > consider Hume's argument that induction cannot be justified - yet it is
> > the basis of all our beliefs - you are led to wonder whether humans have
> > "general intelligence".  Don't we really just have intelligence in this
> > particular world with it's regularities and "natural kinds"?  Our
> > "general intelligence" allows us to see and manipulate objects - but not
> > quantum fields or space-time.
>
> Yeah, I think some no-free-lunch theorems in AI also point to this. I
> was thinking about the simple goal problem - what if we gave an AI all
> the books in the world and tell it to compress them? That could yield
> some very complex internal models... but how would it relate them to
> the real world? When humans are taught language they learn to "ground"
> the concepts at the same time.
>
> That leads me to believe that AIs will in practice need special
> training programs where they proceed from simple problems to more
> complex ones (this is called shaping), much like humans, while staying
> "grounded" from the start. It's a really interesting race: which will
> arrive first, brain digitization or strong AI? My money's on the
> former right now because I believe the engineering of the training
> programs is a big task.
>
> Anybody think strong AI is inherently much easier? I'd very much like
> to be proven wrong because I think early brain digitization will
> likely lead to digital exploitation.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to