On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 03:55:15PM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> This is a question to Russell, as he has made a statement that "life
> need not be intelligent". This was exactly my question what
> intelligent in this respect would mean.

I was not using it in a technical sense, but just the everyday
informal notion. Bacteria exhibit adaptive behaviour, such as
chemotaxis, quorum sensing and switching between random and linear
motion depending on nutrient concentration. But I would argue that
none of these behaviours could be considered intelligent, as they can
be duplicated by low dimensional dynamical systems.

I would imagine that no technical definition for intelligence would be
agreed upon at the present time. The situation would appear to be even
more dire than that with complexity, which does have at least some
vague consensus (see the discussion of complexity in my book, and
references therein).

Here is one (Fulcher "Computational Intelligence: A Compendium"
(2008), Fulcher, Jain (eds) page 3), in citing Eberhardt et al (1996)
"Computational Intelligence PC Tools":

a) ability to learn (Brent Meeker already mentioned this)
b) ability to deal with new situations
c) ability to reason

I hope this answers your (new) question to some degree. Your previous
questions were actually rather different, even if what you were trying
to do was take me to task on my use of the term "intelligent".



Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics      hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales          http://www.hpcoders.com.au

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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to