On 8/12/2012 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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.
Bacteria a certainly smarter than rocks by any reasonable measure. But I don't think a
bacterium has a semi-infinite tape.
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).
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
For more options, visit this group at