On 2/13/2013 5:21 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:


On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 2:58:28 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

    On 2/13/2013 8:35 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
    *Wouldn�t Simulated Intelligence be a more appropriate term
    than Artificial Intelligence?*

    Thinking of it objectively, if we have a program which can model
    a hurricane, we would call that hurricane a simulation, not an
    �artificial hurricane�. If we modeled any physical substance,
    force, or field, we would similarly say that we had simulated
    hydrogen or gravity or electromagnetism, not that we had created
    artificial hydrogen, gravity, etc.

    No, because the idea of an AI is that it can control a robot or
    other machine which interacts with the real world, whereas a
    simulate AI or hurricane acts within a simulated world.


AI doesn't need to interact with the real world though. It makes no difference to the AI whether its environment is real or simulated. Just because we can attach a robot to a simulation doesn't change it into an experience of a real world.

Hi Craig,

I think that you might be making a huge fuss over a difference that does not always make a difference between a public world and a private world! IMHO, that makes the 'real' physical world "Real" is that we can all agree on its properties (subject to some constraints that matter). Many can point at the tree over there and agree on its height and whether or not it is a deciduous variety.





    By calling it artificial, we also emphasize a kind of obsolete
notion of natural vs man-made as categories of origin.

    Why is the distinction between the natural intelligence of a child
    and the artificial intelligence of a Mars rover obsolete?� The
    latter is one we create by art, the other is created by nature.


Because we understand now that we are nature and nature is us.

I disagree! We can fool ourselves into thinking that we "understand' but what we can do is, at best, form testable explanations of stuff... We are fallible!

We can certainly use the term informally to clarify what we are referring to, like we might call someone a plumber because it helps us communicate who we are talking about, but anyone who does plumbing can be a plumber. It isn't an ontological distinction. Nature creates our capacity to create art, and we use that capacity to shape nature in return.

I agree! I think it is that aspect of Nature that can "throw itself into its choice", as Satre mused, that is making the computationalists crazy. I got no problem with it as I embrace non-well foundedness.

"L'homme est d'abord ce qui se jette vers un avenir, et ce qui est
conscient de se projeter dans l'avenir."/ ~ Jean Paul Satre



    If we used simulated instead, the measure of intelligence would
    be framed more modestly as the degree to which a system meets our
    expectations (or what we think or assume are our expectations).
    Rather than assuming a universal index of intelligent qualities
which is independent from our own human qualities,

    But if we measure intelligence strictly relative to human intelligence


I think that it is a misconception to imagine that we have access to any other measure.

    Yeah!


    we will be saying that visual pattern recognition is intelligence
    but solving Navier-Stokes equations is not.


Why, equations are written by intelligent humans?

People are confounded by computational intractability and eagerly spin tales of hypercomputers and other perpetual motion machines.


    � This is the anthropocentrism that continually demotes whatever
    computers can do as "not really intelligent" even when it was
    regarded a the apothesis of intelligence *before* computers
    could� do it.


If I had a camera with higher resolution than a human eye, that doesn't mean that I can replace my eyes with those cameras. Computers can still be exemplary at computation without being deemed literally intelligent. A planetarium's star projector can be as accurate as any telescope and still be understood not to be projecting literal galaxies and stars into the ceiling of the observatory.


    we could evaluate the success of a particular Turing emulation
purely on its merits as a convincing reflection of intelligence

    But there is no one-dimensional measure of intelligence - it's
    just competence in many domains.


Competence in many domains is fine. I'm saying that the competence relates to how well it reflects or amplifies existing intelligence, not that it actually is itself intelligent.


    rather than presuming to have replicated an organic conscious
    experience mechanically.

    I don't think that's a presumption.� It's an inference from the
    incoherence of the idea of a philosophical zombie.


The idea of a philosophical zombie is a misconception based on some assumptions about matter and function which I clearly understand to be untrue. A sociopath is already a philosophical zombie as far as emotional intelligence is concerned. Someone with blindsight is a philosophical zombie as far as visual perception is concerned. Someone who is sleepwalking is a p-zombie as far as bipedal locomotion is concerned. The concept is bogus.

    I 100% concur!




    The cost of losing the promise of imminently mastering awareness
    would, I think, be outweighed by the gain of a more
    scientifically circumspect approach. Putting the Promethean dream
    on hold, we could guard against the shadow of its confirmation
    bias. My concern is that without such a precaution, the promise
    of machine intelligence as a stage 1 simulacrum (a faithful copy
    of an original, in Baudrillard�s terms
    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation>), will be
    diluted to a stage 3 simulacrum (a copy that masks the absence of
    a profound reality, where the simulacrum pretends to be a
    faithful copy.) --�

    The assumption that there is a 'profound reality' is what Stathis
    showed to be 'magic'.


Baudrillard is not talking about consciousness in particular, only the sum of whatever is in the original which is not accessible in the copy. His phrase 'profound reality' is apt though. If you don't experience a profound reality, then you might be a p-zombie already.



    Right!

--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to