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.
Brent
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
