LS Re: The four levels


james.mccabe (james@oranda.com)
Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:25:24 +0100


Hi,Bodvar wrote:

> You also see the challenge for the MOQ posed by Artificial
> Intelligence.
> This issue has not been probed fully because each time we have got
> stuck in
> the confounded subject/object "Mind" in contrast to the Quality
> "Intellect",
> and did I spot the same 'difficulty' with you James? I.e.: That
> Computers
> must enter the (MOQ) Intellectual level to be declared intelligent?
> Magnus
> in his usual fashion waved off Alan Türings test for intelligence, but
>
> Türing is after all the father of computation as we know it, so if he
> couldn't come up with another criterion of intelligence (than not
> being
> able to distinguish it from a human being), I doubt if we can do any
> better.
>

I have always felt that Turing's test is good as a _test_, but that it
is often mistaken for a definition. For instance, if I wish to see if my
stove is hot, I might touch it and test it. Does this mean that we
should define heat as "that which seems hot to experts" or "that which
is similar to good examples of heat such as fire"? Clearly not.
Similarly we have not come far in our understanding of intelligence when
we say, "That is intelligent which seems intelligent." We sense a
Quality from examples, but if static forms such as definitions are to
have use then the Quality must be related to other Qualities.

Perhaps Magnus is right when he says that DQ pervades the concept of
intelligence too much to allow for definition, especially since DQ
appears to grow and quicken with each higher level and we are still
struggling with DQ at the inorganic level. If that is so it is bad news
for AI.

> "There is intellect outside of language" you state. Hmmmm. Perception,
>
> experience, yes. Even intelligence, but the (Quality) Intellect is
> dependent upon
> symbolic language. It IS language in my opinion.
>
>

I wonder if a case can be made for intuitive intellect independent of
symbolic language? It would seem to me that the static-dynamic division
of Quality is more of a continuum than a dichotomy, and that at the most
dynamic end, intellect is free of symbols. Logic, which is purely
symbolic, is most static; then there is natural language which has
symbols but allows for some ambiguity and individual interpretation;
near the dynamic extreme lies Art, I think, for which static rules can
be useful but are not sufficient.

James.

--
post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk
unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:04 CEST