Indeed. I think some form of 'embodiment', being the 'entity' with the 'intelligence' must have its own internal milieu, in it's 'brain-like', and the drive for homeostasis. No? Then it would be comparable, in concept, to our own intelligence, which would be recognizable if it's, you own a humanoid robot, with similar interactions with the world. And a thought here: would it need also some sort of 'fear', some sort of 'battery is running out'/death?
~ *Paulo Rodrigues, PhD, CEO* Ronda de Sant Pere 13 - Pl. 3 - 1 08010 Barcelona, Spain Mob. +34 633 817 514 [email protected] www.mint-labs.com On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Archie, Kevin <[email protected]> wrote: > Yeah, I'm on that train too. I don't think we get anything I'd call > intelligence without some sort of effective interaction with the > environment. > > - k > > On Aug 29, 2014, at 3:44 PM, Ian Danforth wrote: > > "And I think embodiment is essential for intelligence: we need robots in > the physical world, only then will we see behaviours that we recognise as > intelligent. Eventually I want to see a child robot growing up, exploring > the world, learning to talk and having memories and personality just like a > human. This is the only way a neural net will ever learn to speak a human > language IMO." > > Woo! > > > > ------------------------------ > > The material in this message is private and may contain Protected > Healthcare Information (PHI). If you are not the intended recipient, be > advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or the taking of any > action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately > notify the sender via telephone or return mail. >
