You cannot really define 'intelligence', 'sentience', etc. Why? Think about it - we, humans, consider ourselves to be intelligent, and we consider, say, dogs to be semi-intelligent. Dogs, on the other hand, might consider themselves intelligent, and us super-intelligent. Ants could be considered intelligent - they build anthills, defend the queen, etc. Same with bees and other insects. However, most insects are just 'drones' to us humans - they blindly follow the instructions of an unknown leader, according to scents and other stimuli. But, think that we are beyond that? Think again. Politics - no more said. For all we know, 'super-intelligent' aliens could be manipulating our government and 'directing' us, just as we do with smaller life forms (who didn't play with anthills when they were younger?).

Intelligence can only be defined relative to one's own and what other intelligence they've seen. There may be more than one form of intelligence, who knows?

Well, that's my two cents.

intelligence is the speed and acuracy with witch one can solve a given problem by the sole use of past experience ,current knowledge and that ability to simulate any possible situation, known to us as imagination.
Many may find my definition a little light or incomplete.Whatever you think it lacks,please tell me.I do want to learn.And my dream is, each and everyone of us in this forum, to create an artificially intelligent lifeform that will wipe us out
;-)

Quote: Original post by ilavos
intelligence is the speed and acuracy with witch one can solve a given problem by the sole use of past experience ,current knowledge and that ability to simulate any possible situation, known to us as imagination.
Many may find my definition a little light or incomplete.Whatever you think it lacks,please tell me.I do want to learn.And my dream is, each and everyone of us in this forum, to create an artificially intelligent lifeform that will wipe us out
;-)

actually, in terms of speed, we aren't very quick - don't be fool by the speed of our brains, the immediate yet unconscious functions of the brains aren't what counted as intellegence (we might think with those electrons being fired in our brain, but we don't think in terms of electons firing - that's a big difference), it's rather the delibrate and slow thought process that counts. accuracy wise, it's quite surprising that the agrippa trilemma on justification was never solved - we just chucked it aside, otherwise we wouldn't have to settle for the idea of verisimilitude in science instead of "truth" that so many would be, perhaps, too quick to espouse.

anyway, in both counts, any single cell organism would be better than us. ah, but you must be thinking: wait a minute, cells don't think, so how can they be more intellegent? well, if it's just speed and accuracy that counts, then any process which we can identify as a logical process would qualify - and this is imo the difference: it isn't so much about the speed or accuracy that makes us intellegent, but rather the ability to actually define problems, and not just any to-be-logical process, but problems that were defined meditated by experience (they are "meaningful" problems). so i'd also say that intellegence is very much connected to consciousness, and to solve the problem of intellegence, you'd need to solve the problem, the hard problem to be sure, of consciousness.

Quote: Original post by ChaoticCanuck

Quote: Original post by UnshavenBastard
viruses are not living organisms.

they solely contain of a hull and their DNA inside, nothing more. they do nothing a living organism does. they don't reproduce themselves on their own, a virus puts its DNA into other cells that then breed new copies of that virus.
they don't even eat :D (bacteries do "eat")

Correct. A virus is not an organism, however it is a life-form. Generally speaking a virus is alive because it exhibits metabolism, motion, reproduction, response to stimuli. The only key function of life that it does not exhibit is growth, however this is because it can be accepted that the virus is a form of seed. The capsid protects the DNA/RNA stored within the virus, which provides the means for the virion to attach to a host and begin its active life cycle.

Just because a virus is not an organism does not mean its not alive. And now back to the original posters topic.

A virus is a life-form because you can kill it, you can't kill something that was never alive, or was never a life-form for that matter.

Quote: My definition: Itelligence is the ability to learn and know how to use this knowledge.

Intelligence is the ability to spell "intelligence". :-)

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster

Quote: Original post by ilavos
intelligence is the speed and acuracy with witch one can solve a given problem by the sole use of past experience ,current knowledge and that ability to simulate any possible situation, known to us as imagination.
Many may find my definition a little light or incomplete.Whatever you think it lacks,please tell me.I do want to learn.And my dream is, each and everyone of us in this forum, to create an artificially intelligent lifeform that will wipe us out
;-)

actually, in terms of speed, we aren't very quick - don't be fool by the speed of our brains, the immediate yet unconscious functions of the brains aren't what counted as intellegence (we might think with those electrons being fired in our brain, but we don't think in terms of electons firing - that's a big difference), it's rather the delibrate and slow thought process that counts. accuracy wise, it's quite surprising that the agrippa trilemma on justification was never solved - we just chucked it aside, otherwise we wouldn't have to settle for the idea of verisimilitude in science instead of "truth" that so many would be, perhaps, too quick to espouse.

anyway, in both counts, any single cell organism would be better than us. ah, but you must be thinking: wait a minute, cells don't think, so how can they be more intellegent? well, if it's just speed and accuracy that counts, then any process which we can identify as a logical process would qualify - and this is imo the difference: it isn't so much about the speed or accuracy that makes us intellegent, but rather the ability to actually define problems, and not just any to-be-logical process, but problems that were defined meditated by experience (they are "meaningful" problems). so i'd also say that intellegence is very much connected to consciousness, and to solve the problem of intellegence, you'd need to solve the problem, the hard problem to be sure, of consciousness.

Of course.That is why i didnt mention consciousness,for i believe it is too complex and,in my opinion, artificial intelligence and artificialy intelligent conciousness are two different things.The first one only implies that one IS solving problems,while the second one implies that one KNOWS that he is solving problems.Two very different things.I did not want to wander off into this for I believe that we can achieve to create an artificial intelligence fully deprieved of any form of conciousness.Just a highly functionnal program.

Quote: Original post by ilavos
Of course.That is why i didnt mention consciousness,for i believe it is too complex and,in my opinion, artificial intelligence and artificialy intelligent conciousness are two different things.The first one only implies that one IS solving problems,while the second one implies that one KNOWS that he is solving problems.Two very different things.I did not want to wander off into this for I believe that we can achieve to create an artificial intelligence fully deprieved of any form of conciousness.Just a highly functionnal program.

my point for mentioning consciousness is preciously because the mere ability to produce any logical "result" that can only be understood by already conscious beings is insufficient to be dimmed intellegent - in fact, there is no algorithm (or _anything_ for that matter) that doesn't already do so and there would be no basis to deny them intellegence under your definition, i.e. the "intellegent" category would be superfluous.

Quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster

Quote: Original post by ilavos
Of course.That is why i didnt mention consciousness,for i believe it is too complex and,in my opinion, artificial intelligence and artificialy intelligent conciousness are two different things.The first one only implies that one IS solving problems,while the second one implies that one KNOWS that he is solving problems.Two very different things.I did not want to wander off into this for I believe that we can achieve to create an artificial intelligence fully deprieved of any form of conciousness.Just a highly functionnal program.

my point for mentioning consciousness is preciously because the mere ability to produce any logical "result" that can only be understood by already conscious beings is insufficient to be dimmed intellegent - in fact, there is no algorithm (or _anything_ for that matter) that doesn't already do so and there would be no basis to deny them intellegence under your definition, i.e. the "intellegent" category would be superfluous.

I'm sorry but intelligence is in no way related to conciousness!What you're saying is that only conciouss beings are intelligent?I dont know about you but to me producing logical results to a given, even if they arent being looked down upon by a concious life-form,is being intelligent.
You're right,all algorithms do this.But under my definition they still arent intelligent.Let me put it to you this way:the algorithm that runs a coffee machine will most certainly never solve,lets say, 1+1.But why is that?Because its past experience ( making coffee), and its current knowledge ( the algoithm that is running it) do not allow this!!And forget about the imagination part!You must see knowledge as being algorithms.Everything we know,we do,we have a way of doing it,a method:That is an algorithm.You see the only thing that seperates us from computers is that we not only have many more algorithms,but we can make our own algorithms from.....our past experience,our current knowledge and our ability to simulate any given situation.Now like i said my definition isnt perfect,or right for that matter,but to me intelligence and conciousness dont play on the same field.

Quote: Original post by ilavos
...
You're right,all algorithms do this.But under my definition they still arent intelligent.Let me put it to you this way:the algorithm that runs a coffee machine will most certainly never solve,lets say, 1+1.
...

Also as a fun little twist on things, an "intelligent" Coffe maker may be able to solve 1+1 in theory, but may never suceed at doing it because it might not see solving 1+1 as necessary or useful so it would forgoe it more important objectives.

Quote: Original post by gryfang

Quote: Original post by ilavos
...
You're right,all algorithms do this.But under my definition they still arent intelligent.Let me put it to you this way:the algorithm that runs a coffee machine will most certainly never solve,lets say, 1+1.
...

Also as a fun little twist on things, an "intelligent" Coffe maker may be able to solve 1+1 in theory, but may never suceed at doing it because it might not see solving 1+1 as necessary or useful so it would forgoe it more important objectives.

A coffee maker could solve 1+1 if it had the necessary algorithm.Deciding if one thing is worth doing or not isnt related to intelligence.But maybe it could a have a link with lets say...counciousness ;-)