Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Siquo]

Is intelligence really so absolute?

The only thing that makes us "intelligent" is that we can communicate abstractions. Anything we can't communicate those things with, is deemed unintelligent, even if it might not be. On the other hand, advanced technology also does not make something intelligent. Earth might be eaten by a really stupid but very advanced Von Neumann machine at any time.

I don't think we can ever recognise intelligence until we can communicate with it. Hence the Turing test, which is all about communication, I just realised.

[The Doctor]

What's the point of it being intelligent if it can't express it's intelligence? Or worse, make itself better through information gathering?

[Jackrabbit]

Isn't intelligence a means to an end? What end does a rock have?

[Bauglir]

Is intelligence really so absolute?

The only thing that makes us "intelligent" is that we can communicate abstractions. Anything we can't communicate those things with, is deemed unintelligent, even if it might not be. On the other hand, advanced technology also does not make something intelligent. Earth might be eaten by a really stupid but very advanced Von Neumann machine at any time.

I don't think we can ever recognise intelligence until we can communicate with it. Hence the Turing test, which is all about communication, I just realised.

Also we can recognize that we exist. Cats (many, at least, although I can't make a blanket statement since I've neither done nor seen research), for example, cannot seem to recognize their own reflection, and as adorable as it is to watch them paw at a mirror until they figure out it's a wall and they can't get at that mysterious other cat (I may be anthropomorphizing a cat's thought processes somewhat, but that part isn't relevant to the point), it's evidence they aren't self-aware.

[Siquo]

The cat communicates through movement and behaviour, which, interpreted by us, displays no sense of abstraction, therefore we assume that it's unintelligent.

But it's easy to anthromorphise another mammal or vertebrate.

Godel, Escher Bach features an intelligent ant-heap, who communicates through the patterns of ants (the intelligence comes from the emergent behaviour of groups of dumb components, like our brains). We'll probably never be able to decypher what one is saying to us, and vice-versa, and it could still be self aware.

Point is spoilered because most people don't like my points and it goes back to my original statement:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

See, even the belief that a rock is intelligent has its merits. It has arguments, it has the possibility of being true, and yet if I were to proclaim it in the streets, I would probably be taken to the shrink for some medication.

The difference lies in not starting the whole "They're after me. The rocks are conspiring against me!"-thing again. That one was really tiring, the buggers are everywhere. I'd better stay with the mind-reading butterflies for now.

[The Doctor]

I think the issue is that you are a step behind us. You're talking about the hypothesis, how all hypothesis' have merits. From my understanding, we're talking about Theories. Evidence and experiments designed to test the hypothesis.

Otherwise, you're insane.

[Leafsnail]

"All ideas are valid" does not follow from "Some slightly surprising things can be argued for philosophically".

[Josephus]

Isn't intelligence a means to an end? What end does a rock have?

Simple.

Ultimate power.

[Bauglir]

Isn't intelligence a means to an end? What end does a rock have?

Simple.

Ultimate power.

But would it really achieve it? Put another way, would it be REAL ultimate power?

[Realmfighter]

The power to do anything, and to use it for nothing.

[MaximumZero]

What about "Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies?" That's pretty powerful.

[ChairmanPoo]

paw at a mirror until they figure out it's a wall and they can't get at that mysterious other cat (I may be anthropomorphizing a cat's thought processes somewhat, but that part isn't relevant to the point), it's evidence they aren't self-aware.

I've always found the mirror test dubious, as it doesn't prove anything beyond the capacity to recognize oneself in a mirror.

[SolarShado]

Our cat doesn't pay any attention to mirrors... her reflection or otherwise...

[Bauglir]

paw at a mirror until they figure out it's a wall and they can't get at that mysterious other cat (I may be anthropomorphizing a cat's thought processes somewhat, but that part isn't relevant to the point), it's evidence they aren't self-aware.

I've always found the mirror test dubious, as it doesn't prove anything beyond the capacity to recognize oneself in a mirror.

The point is that you're able to recognize "Oh, hey, that thing is doing the same things I am at exactly the same times, it must be me" sort of thought process. Not necessarily that you're able to recognize your own features, but to recognize that the thing you're seeing acts as you do. As for cats and mirrors, like I said, I've not done research and can only really report on what I've seen (which is that our cat, when a kitten and unaccustomed to mirrors would do that, but does not any longer, presumably having gotten acclimated to them; likewise, youtube. All anecdotal, but it's really not the point; the point was just to illustrate a concept). So I could easily be wrong about the specifics.

Although, in retrospect, it occurs to me that this probably DOES fall under the category of abstract reasoning, so oh well. I wouldn't call it "only", in that case, I suppose.

[ChairmanPoo]

My point is that the whole experiment is based on accepting the premise that not recognizing oneself in the mirror has any implicit meaning in regards to self-awareness. This is not necessarily so, and if google serves as a reference, there is quite a bit of argument about the issue.