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 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