Phief!! Saved by MikeD again! Just like the time in the politics forum.

I owe you one Mike

LOL

quote:

---

Original post by MikeD
Newborn babies of _our_ species don''t crawl.

But apparently the word baby can mean other species as well (I looked it up to be sure).

---

Yeah, okay, point taken! Since we were suggesting that animals can be intelligent, it''s fair to consider baby animals too!

quote:

---

Some argue that the reason human''s are so unable to care for themselves at birth is because the high level of plasticity and potential for adaptation that we have necessitates a lack of hard coding at birth (we still have hard coding but a lot less than (perhaps almost) all other species).

---

From my understanding of the common literature (i.e., not academic literature) on babies, it is suggested that we are so helpless because we are born far earlier than we should. Gestation is thought to be 9 months because after that time period, the babies head has grown too large to fit through the small hole in the female pelvis, which is roughly 10-12cm in diameter. One could speculate that very early in our evolution we could remain in the womb longer (since we would have had smaller heads) and would have been more capable of looking after ourselves (with parental assistance) than we are now at birth.

One could then postulate an evolutionary advantage of adaptability as our brain size increased. I.e., consider two mutations of the species, both with increased brain size, but one with higher adaptability and one with more hard-wiring. Both would need to be born earlier than optimal gestation due to the increased head diameter. One could speculate that the more adaptable mutation would be more likely to survive in successive generations because the parents would be adaptable to dealing with a helpless baby, as opposed to the hard-wired parents, who would do the same old routine. Clearly I''m over-simplifying the issue, but hopefully you catch my drift!

quote:

---

Original post by MikeD
This brings into question whether evolvability itself is an evolutionary advantage giving an individual increased fitness on an evolutionary scale. It probably is.

---

I think it''s fairly obvious actually that adaptation offers an evolutionary advantage. For example, there is a moth - I''ve forgotten the particular species - that can change the colour of its body from light to dark when it''s environment has been burnt out. Clearly this adaptability offers an advantage, since birds find it very hard to find a dark bodied moth on the surface of a burnt tree. Those lighter bodied moths that couldn''t change colour would stand out and be eaten very quickly.

quote:

---

Original post by MikeD
The detachment from hard wiring in the brain might allow our bodies and brains to evolve more swiftly...

---

That''s an intersting thought. Although I''m not sure it is a detachment of hard-wiring, as opposed to a supression of hard-wired behaviours by cognitive decisions (supposed free will )... if that''s even possible of course!

Cheers,

Timkin

quote:

---

Original post by Pipo DeClown
No one can create Intelligence, that''s why we have Artificial Intelligence.

---

I take it you''re not married?



-Luctus

---

Statisticly seen, most things happens to other people.
[Mail]

I thought true Intelligence of a non-biological machine was defined as a machine that could pass the Turing Test. The Turing Test can be passed if a human on the opposite side of a "wall" as you can''t tell the difference between you and another human. The judgement would be based on intellect and not physical graphics. You is the bot.

Stevan Harnad has proposed a graded series of Turing Tests for the assessment of intelligence, called T1 to T5. The original TT falls in at T3. The ultimate test, whereby the agent is completely indistinguishable from a human in all respects, is T5. It is postulated that the only way to pass T5 is to essentially be human - grow, learn and behave as a human does during their life - even though you might be made from artificial cells! The apparent requirements for passing T3 are only that the agent can absorb and understand the types of experiences that humans have and that they''re sensory systems are human-like; so that their underlying understanding of the things they are communicating about is human-like. This again gets back to what Mike has been talking about earlier in this thread.

Timkin

Putting humans at the top of the Intelligence ladder is rather arrogant... Better to make a scale T1 - T100 with humans maybe around T10 or something...

quote:

---

Putting humans at the top of the Intelligence ladder is rather arrogant... Better to make a scale T1 - T100 with humans maybe around T10 or something...

---

I think we have to put humans at the top of the intelligence test-- not because we''re neccesarilly the most intelligent species in the universe, but because it would be impossible for us to comprehend the reasoning behind the actions of something vastly superior to humanity.

Will

quote:

---

Original post by Stonicus
Putting humans at the top of the Intelligence ladder is rather arrogant...

---

No, it''s rather anthropomorphic...

The point of the Turing test is NOT to test for objective level of intelligence, but rather to test for the indiscernibility of an artificial agent and a human. Hence, a human SHOULD be the ultimate comparison test.

Timkin

Wow, only just read this thread, its amazing the amount of differrent perspectives such a niche of humanity can have. i gotta say, like the rest, i too agree with a lot, and dissagree with a lot.
First off, as others have said, it is important to define your terms, and I think intelegence is just the abilty to do things. Plain and simple. A calculator is just as intelligent as a bot from counter-strike (yes I understant people hold contrasting views to this). Thus we can and have created artificial intelegence.
Many people are comparing intelegence to what the human race is, and can do. So my definition supports this.
I believe the original poster''s definition of intelligence may have been similar to my definition of ingenious. Which is the ability to invent, to hack, to look from different perspectives, to be irrational(yes i mean this one), to be able to change thier mind, and to be able to do choose not to go for the goal(weird? maybe too complex?(feedback please)). This definition of Ingenious however does not support the human race entirely, there are some among us that are ingenious, but it is almost infinitesimal.
I am second year uni student, studying IT and Maths, and wish to study AI thoroughly(though have study little yet), i believe that the true test comes when trying to develope something ingenious. Thus i repeat the original post in my own words(taking it a step further)...
Is it possible to create something ingenious?

quote:

---

Original post by Zephyrox
The discussion here is about whats intelligence and whats not, and i dont belive anyone has an answer for that. Is a chess computer smart or intelligent? probobly not, it only has simple mathmatical rules to follow.
You cant tell if you playing against a computer or a human if your playing chess and cant see the opponent. So wouldn´t that be "real" AI?

---

Actually that''s a pretty bad analogy. Its near trivial to determine if you''re playing against a computer or a human, without seeing your opponent. You can also usually determine the approximate experience and strength of your opponent based solely on their moves in chess.

The strongest computers play really nothing at all like humans, and that isn''t to say they have a deeper understanding. Much the opposite computers tend to play extremely superficially by grand master standards, but they are extremely accurate at short term calculation.