Hi Roger,

We distinguish between computers as physical objects and computations which are not necessarily only those things that physical computer objects do. My definition of a computation is any transformation of information (which is defined as the difference between two things that makes a difference to a third thing).



On 8/12/2012 8:35 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
This is not going to make you computer folks happy, sorry.
Life is whatever can experience its surroundings,
nonlife cannot do so.  That's the difference.
Intelligence requires the ability to experience what it is selecting.
So only life can have intelligence.
Life is subjective, nonlife is objective.
Computers cannot experience anything because they are not subjective,
only objective. Everytthing must be in words, not directly experienced.
Thus computers cannot be (truly) intelligent. And AI is impossible,
because only living items can experience the world..
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net <mailto:rclo...@verizon.net>
8/12/2012

    ----- Receiving the following content -----
    *From:* Evgenii Rudnyi <mailto:use...@rudnyi.ru>
    *Receiver:* everything-list <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
    *Time:* 2012-08-11, 10:22:44
    *Subject:* Re: Definitions of intelligence possibly useful to
    computers in AI ordescribing life

    On 11.08.2012 15:13 Stephen P. King said the following:
    > On 8/11/2012 4:30 AM, 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?
    >>
    >> Evgenii
    >>
    > Dear Evgenii,
    >
    > A bacterium and a rock should not be put head to (no)head in this
    > question. A bacterium has autonomy while a rock does not. It is
    better
    > to see that the rock is just a small piece of an autonomous
    whole and
    > then compare that whole to the (whole) bacterium.
    >

    My goal was just to try to understand what Russell meant by life is
    unintelligent. Say let us take some creations of AI and compare them
    with a bacterium. Where do we find more intelligence?

    Evgenii

-- 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.
    <mailto:%20everything-l...@googlegroups.com.>
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
    <mailto:%20unsubscr...@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-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.


--
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon

--
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.

Reply via email to