John M, that was a pretty excellent performance, you should write more
On Jun 15, 12:54 pm, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Brent,
> let me cut in with your last par:
> *"...There is a tendency to talk about "human-equivalent intelligence" or
> "human level intelligence" as an ultimate goal. Human intelligence evolved
> to enhance certain functions: cooperation, seduction, bargaining,
> deduction,... There's no reason to suppose it is the epitome of
> intelligence. Intelligence may take many forms, some of which we would have
> difficulty realizing or crediting. Like a universal machine that is not
> programmed, which by one measure is maximally intelligent but also maximally
> incompetent. Even in humans intelligence is far from one-dimensional. A
> small child is extremely intelligent as measured by the ability to learn,
> but not very smart as measured by knowledge.
> and say: thank you. In my vocabulary (agnostic) we cannot simulate "human"
> (not limited to our present 'knowledge'), nor do (I?) have an acceptable
> definition for intelligence (not restricted of course to the methodology of
> the US IQ tests). "Inter-lego" means IMO to read between lines - a mentally
> active attitude. Mentally means more than we could identify 3000 years ago,
> but still on the move for more to be learned today. We are still YOUR
> "small child". I look for 'intelligence' in more than human traits, but
> accept your distinction of "human-equivalent" (especially the "human
> level"). To be smart is useful, but IMO not a sole requirement of
> IMO the universal machine (I wish I knew more about it...) is "not
> programmed" within our human technological thinking, - maybe it is way
> 'above' it - and "incompetent" only in our human distinction. I have a hard
> time to follow your "one-dimensional " view of intelligence.
> It may reach into the 'nonlinear' as well, without us being aware of it.
> Thanks to Bruno for the hint to my old (15-20y ago) friendly contact Ben
> Goertzel whom I try to ask about his recent positions. He had 'fertilizing'
> ideas. To (Bruno's) other par:
> do you have a 'measurable' definition for "conscious" - to speak about
> (virgin = not programmed) yet 'maximally conscious' universal machine(s)? -
> WITH included some
> (In my recent (ongoing) speculations I erred into the 'world's' "Unlimited
> Complexity", - as said: 'out there', of which we derived only a so far
> acquired portion FOR our world(view?) (including the conventional sciences)
> as* perceived reality* or say a better name - with "imagining" a*
> * (more than existing in our present knowledge) of hard-to-identify
> (hard-to-distinguish) 'aspects' in exchanging relations rather than
> identifiable topics relating to our (worldly) topics, we can use. This would
> serve a higher level of agnosticism. Our 'models' we think *within* (R.
> Rosen) are formed by our capability to position the received (perceived?)
> phenomenal information adjusted into our 'mental'(?) personalized, unique
> worldview upon Colin Hale's earlier 'mini-solipsism').
> n such lines the universal machine etc. are 'human inventions' to facilitate
> some (our?) understanding of the 'world' still beyond our knowledge base.
> And - sorry! - so are 'numbers' as well. We cannot overstep our human logic
> - at least not in fundamental questions.
> Best regards
> John M
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:47 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On 6/15/2011 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> Doesn't this objection only apply to attempts to construct an AI with
> >>> human-equivalent intelligence? As a counter example I'm thinking here
> >>> of Ben Goertzel's OpenCog, an attempt at artificial general
> >>> intelligence (AGI), whose design is informed by a theory of
> >>> intelligence that does not attempt to mirror or model human
> >>> intelligence. In light of the "Benacerraf principle", isn't it
> >>> possible in principle to provably construct AIs so long as we're not
> >>> trying to emulate or model human intelligence?
> >> I think that comp might imply that simple virgin (non programmed)
> >> universal (and immaterial) machine are already conscious. Perhaps even
> >> maximally conscious. Then adding induction gives them Löbianity, and this
> >> makes them self-conscious (which might already be a delusion of some sort).
> >> Unfortunately the hard task is to interface such (self)-consciousness with
> >> our probable realities (computational histories). This is what we can
> >> hardly
> >> be sure about.
> >> I still don't know if the brain is just a filter of consciousness, in
> >> which case losing neurons might enhance consciousness (and some data in
> >> neurophysiology might confirm this). I think Goertzel is more creating a
> >> competent machine than an intelligent one, from what I have read about it.
> >> I
> >> oppose intelligence/consciousness and competence/ingenuity. The first is
> >> needed to develop the later, but the later has a negative feedback on the
> >> first.
> >> Bruno
> > There is a tendency to talk about "human-equivalent intelligence" or "human
> > level intelligence" as an ultimate goal. Human intelligence evolved to
> > enhance certain functions: cooperation, seduction, bargaining, deduction,...
> > There's no reason to suppose it is the epitome of intelligence.
> > Intelligence may take many forms, some of which we would have difficulty
> > realizing or crediting. Like a universal machine that is not programmed,
> > which by one measure is maximally intelligent but also maximally
> > incompetent. Even in humans intelligence is far from one-dimensional. A
> > small child is extremely intelligent as measured by the ability to learn,
> > but not very smart as measured by knowledge.
> > Brent
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Everything List" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at