On 21 Mar 2015, at 20:22, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/21/2015 1:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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.
I have explained since the start that intelligence needs
consciousness, which is mystical, first person, and non definable in
arithmetic, like Arithmetical truth.
Defining it is indeed beyond the realm of Peano Arithmetic, or any
machine, but, and that is the whole point, machines can get at them.
Indeed, that is the whole point of G* \ G, Z* \ Z, G1* \ G1, X1* \ X1,
etc.
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 meant when you can't do the thing at all. Like proving your own
consistency, proving that God, or any reality, exists, or defining
truth or first person completely, etc.
I think you're just philosophizing now - opinion disguised as science.
You don't think well.
It is simple applied mathematics.
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.
Babies, universal machine, humans after salvia, or some shock, well
amnesic enough to have no prejudices. I am not sure Kim was confusing
anything. I still have no idea of what JKC tries to say, except that
he defines intelligence by what I call competence, as I use
intelligence in a sense close to Bohm and Krishamurty.
Note that some antic text also use intelligence for a sort of
competence, usually to associate intelligence (competence) with the
devil. In french "malin" means both clever, and fatal (for a disease),
and "malin" (clever) comes from "mal" (bad).
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?
Competence in learning might be a quite good first third-person
approximation off it. But that is it is still a competence.
Intelligence is what you need to get the basic of any competence,
including the competence of learning. Like consciousness, it might be
a spandrel of Turing universality. In theory, although this annoy me a
bit, universal machine can be said maximally intelligent. It might be
the state we weaken by the illusion of materiality.
Intelligence, as I use it, together with may people from the mystic
tradition (but not all, and sometimes you need to make some shift in
the vocabulary), is deep, simple, and very fundamental. It might be a
simple variant of consciousness. It belongs to the "heart", not the
"brain". We need it to love genuinely something. It is emotional,
which makes it into a first person notion. We can't test it, nor can
we measure it. It is probably closer to conscience than to
consciousness. Like consciousness, when you have it, you can recognize
or bet on it on other persons you can met, or read.
It seems common among humans, but it tend to decrease after puberty,
and sometimes re-increase later.
For some people it can be trigged when going near death, in a way or
in another way.
You are right, it is mystical, but keep in mind that in the universal
machine theory, the mystical is not hard to circumscribe, machines get
them by the intensional variants of G* \ G.
With the precise definitions given, it is not speculative
philosophical: it is computer science, and rigorous definition. All
the definitions I gave are the standard one used in the field crossed.
RA, the (Turing) universal realm of everything is "dumb", but PA,
emulated infinitely often in that realm, is already maximally
intelligent.
Despite ZF is maximally more competent on the arithmetical truth than
PA, it is not clear to me if ZF is not already a bit deluded and that
it might be less intelligent (in that mystical sense) than PA. But
that cannot be tested. Just that the more you know, the more you can
be deluded.
Bruno
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].
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 everything-
[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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
