On 11 Aug 2012, at 10:30, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.08.2012 00:55 Russell Standish said the following:
The point being that life need not be intelligent. In fact 999.9% of
life (but whatever measure, numbers, biomass etc) is unintelligent.
The study of artificial life by the same reason need not be a study
of
artitificial intelligence, although because of a biases as an
intelligent species, a significantly higher fraction of alife
research
is about AI.
What does intelligence means in this context that life is
unintelligent? Let us compare for example a bacterium and a rock.
Where there is more intelligence?
Bacteria are provably Turing complete, rocks are not.
You might remind us what you mean by "intelligent". I tend to oppose
it to competence and learning. Intelligence is needed for making
competence capable of growing and diversified, but competence has a
negative feedback on intelligence. I use intelligence in a sense
closer to free-will and consciousness than an ability to solve
problems. IQ tests concerns always form of competence (very basic one:
they have been invented to detect mental disability).
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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.
