Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Thu, 9 Oct 1997 02:28:50 +0100
Lars Marius wrote:
>
> Bodvar, what do you feel a computer must do to enter the Intellectual
> level? As you can see below, I don't think passing the Turing test is
> sufficient. What would you consider sufficient? And what would it mean,
> calling a piece of silicone intelligent? Would it have human rights?
> In what way would its intelligence be different from our intelligence?
>
Intelligence and Intellect are almost synonymous in our (Indo- European)
languages, so I have possibly introduced a difficulty by
distinguishing between the "Intellectual Level" of MOQ and
Intelligence. And yet, even my Oxford Dictionary list a difference
between Intellect and Intelligence: It says that the former means the
pover of mind to reason, while the last means the power of
perceiving, learning and knowing. This still implies only human
beings, but the meaning was established long before the AI, so that
may change.
To make it clear, I think only human beings have entered the
'Intellectual Level', because it stems from the highly advanced
human 'Social Level' which is founded on the advanced human
Biological Level (neocortex) brain. This makes it impossible for
other organisms to THINK or REASON like a human being. The
self-nscious - "I am a human being" - is a genuine human experience
that only society and (symbolic) language can uphold and convey, but
SOM thinking has lead us to believe that this is the intelligence
test one must pass.
Also, the Subject/Object way of pouring everything into the "mind"
term (in contrast to "matter") seduces us into believing that there
is an objective reality that an organism (or a machine) has to be
conscious of to be declared intelligent. And if this way of looking
at things is carried over to the MOQ I have trouble seeing what is
so special about it in contrast to good old Substance metaphysics.
To return to Intelligence - the capacity to perceive and learn from
experience. ALL organisms experience according to their (neural)
complexity. The amoeba world is simple, while the primates live in a
quite complex world, and possibly have some rudimentary sense of self
(Hugo said that chimpanzees understood that they we looking at
themselves in a mirror), but without the backing of an advanced
Society and language the Intellectual Level will remain out of bounds
for other species.
And yet, I do believe that the Intelligence of a simple animal can be
simulated, in time perhaps the higher ones - even mankind's
(although its Intellectual Level canot be enetred). My reply to
Doug (stating that there IS NO DIFFERENCE between a simulated
intelligence and an artificial one) was a bit strong, I will buy his
'indistinguishable" version, but I still uphold that there is no
test that can "disrobe" an AI. The
above hopefully answers your question what I feel a computer must do
to enter the Intellectual Level (It can't). The answer to the second
(what would it mean to call a piece of silicon intelligent?) is -
again: It must be indistinguishable from the intelligence it is
supposed to simulate. The "Deeper Blue" chess program fulfilled the
criterion, Kasparov would not have known that he was beaten by a
machine had he not known in beforehand.
It is only number crunching we say, as if no computation takes place in
our biological brain. Intuition! What is that except hidden
computation? In Tor Nörretrander's "Merk Värden" there is a lot about
how narrow our field of attention is; A few bytes and we are
overwhelmed, while billions upon billions of impression bytes pour in
through our senses to be evaluated and thrown away.
A Theory of Everything (metaphysics) that can't account for AI is not
worth much. The SOM cannot; it is hung up in its Cogito-Ergo-Sum
blind alley, but the MOQ can if its basics are heeded. I have to harp
so much on this to avoid the notion that an artific l intelligence
has to have a mental life, or to enter some "spiritual" level (our
Nordic, German-derived languages have two kinds of Mind
[Sinn and Ánd], the latter extremely noble)).
PS. I know about the "Eliza" program, and how easy it is to see purpose
everywhere. I get mad as h... at my computer for not understanding me
and feel a strong urge to shoot it.
Bodvar
-- 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 - 16:42:05 CEST