On 3/21/2015 1:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Mar 2015, at 04:00, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/20/2015 6:32 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Mar 2015, at 20:51, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> Then the Turing Test works for consciousness and not just for
intelligence.
> It can give an idea that some entity is conscious, if long enough, and
with
entity similar to you. It can not work for intelligence.
Good God!
Let us hope.
In the final analysis passing the Turing Test just means being observed doing
intelligent things,
The Turing test measure the ability in the domain "passing a Turing tests".
But I think you're imagining the Turing test in a restricted way. The Turing test can
measure learning ability too. You've asked Liz and me to prove some theorems in modal
logic. I don't know about Liz, but I learned what I know about modal logic from you on
this list. So does my proving those theorems mean I only exhibited competence, or was
it intelligence?
I am not sure.
Do you think it is impossible to distinguish intelligence from competence?
Competence is domain dependent, and can be evaluated, with exams, tests, etc.
I could measure your competence in modal logic by given problems.
But with the definition I gave, it is harder to evaluate non trivial intelligence, and
it is very simple to evaluate trivial stupidity. If a machine says "I am consistent", or
"I am inconsistent" I can suspect it to be stupid. If a pebble says nothing (which is
often the case with pebble) there is a sense to say it is "trivially" intelligent. You
can measure stupidity, by counting the number of times someone says the same stupid
things. Like Albert Camus said: stupidity insists.
But for machine of similar complexity, absence of saying stupidity is a sort of measure
of local/current intelligence, but it cannot be used to declare the machine intelligent.
The machine might repeat the stupidities some other days.
Intelligence is almost only an attitude. Some people becomes intelligent after a shock,
or some events. Competence usually needs some long amount of work.
But now you're making "intelligence" into something mystic, an "attitude" that's beyond
arithmetic.
We can say that plant are competent in disseminating their seeds, but we would not say
that it is intelligent behavior.
Intelligence is closer to notion like consciousness, wiseness, enlightening, and is more
a property of the "heart" (in his antic poetical sense), than a property of a brain owner.
Intelligence is almost what is there by default, and can be destroyed by mental wounds
or psychological problem. Intelligence is affective, emotional and a probable
definition would refer to the first person. Competence is more 3p and testable.
If you're going to suppose that the world can be emulated by digital computation I
think you'll have to accept that digital communication, "the domain of passing a Turing
test", is sufficient for any learning, intelligence, and competence.
I agree. This is close to the non zombie principle. But this does not make
"intelligence" and competence equivalent. usually intelligence accelerates learning and
the possible development of competence, but high competence can make people sleepy and
have negative feedback on intelligence.
Intelligence is well captured by an axiomatic similar to the main properties of
consistency. When true, you will not asserted it about yourself. But of course such
axiomatic works also for happiness and other "protagorean virtue". In fact, intelligence
is the mother of all protagorean virtue, that you can teach by practising them, and thus
by example behavior, but that you can hardly teach by words, except for the trivial one
by default, for enough complex machinery if you want avoid the intelligence of the pebble.
Somehow: competence is what make you able to do things and say correctly "I know" when
you know, like "I know how to solve that type of problem in modal logic. Intelligence is
the ability to stay mute when you can't do the thing.
I think the intelligent thing to do would be to ask for help. I think you're just
philosophizing now - opinion disguised as science.
Competence is well studied by theoretical artificial intelligence (Putnam, Gold, Blum,
Case and Smith, Oherson, Zeugmann, etc.)
Intelligence, up to now, is better studied by the G and G* logics, and their intensional
variant.
There might be different characterizations. I suspect that intelligence is also an
ability to listen to the others (which makes you saying less stupidities). Stupidity is
almost a sort of autism or neurosis making an entity unable to listen to the others. It
does not exist by default, but develops by affective problems, lack of self-esteem, etc.
may be intelligence is a sort of ability to love people different from you, and
stupidity is an ability to hate people different from you.
Do you get the idea?
I already had the idea. I tried to explain it to JKC and Kim, because I think you
confused them by saying babies were intelligent and intelligence and competence were
opposites.
I tend to attribute intelligence to all (universal, Löbian) machines by default, but
competence is when some machine can solve some problems in some class of problems.
What if the problem is to become competent in a different class of problem. Isn't
competence in learning = intelligence?
Brent
There is no universal competence in practice, but intelligence is a universal notion a
priori.
Bruno
Brent
--
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
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>
--
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
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
