Quote: Original post by ilavos
I'm sorry but intelligence is in no way related to conciousness!What you're saying is that only conciouss beings are intelligent?

yes, this is what i'm saying, and obviously you disagree, but rather than merely asserting that there can be intellegence without consciousness, can you provide an example of something that possesses intellegence while lacking consciousness? i've read your coffee machine example but alas, it is insufficient, and i'll explain it below.

Quote: 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!!

this i disagree, the inability to conceive how to use what is there, a coffee machine in this case, to produce a desirable result (what is a "result" if it has no meaning? and how do you conceive meaning if not from consciousness?) does not mean its inability to do so, and certainly, if your example is true, one would wonder how babbage turned a loom into a machine that can compute. indeed, assuming that you have knowledge of fundamental electronics and the history of computing, a computer doesn't know numbers, it has (not that it knows) only high and low voltages. in fact, there is no computer that can solve 1 + 1 - what we make the volages and its possible representation is one thing, to say that it is intellegent is really trivilizing the meaning of the word. so if your hypothetical coffee machine is not intellegent by your standard, then nothing that runs purely from an algorithm is sufficient to be consider intellegent either.

Quote: 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.

and what of its purpose? if we somehow were imbue with the algorithms without us ever being aware of what it actually solves - that is we just spiel out the result of the algorithm without ever experiencing a reflection of it, what is it then? wouldn't then any reflex of the body be an intellegent result even if the person is in a comma? how about sleep walking?

Quote: 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.

i think part of the purpose for inventing programming languages such as lisp, scheme, or ml is precisely to address that problem - namly the ability for a program to produce algorithms from its own data.

Original post by Anonymous Poster

Quote: This i disagree, the inability to conceive how to use what is there, a coffee machine in this case, to produce a desirable result (what is a "result" if it has no meaning? and how do you conceive meaning if not from consciousness?) does not mean its inability to do so, and certainly, if your example is true, one would wonder how babbage turned a loom into a machine that can compute. indeed, assuming that you have knowledge of fundamental electronics and the history of computing, a computer doesn't know numbers, it has (not that it knows) only high and low voltages. in fact, there is no computer that can solve 1 + 1 - what we make the volages and its possible representation is one thing, to say that it is intellegent is really trivilizing the meaning of the word. so if your hypothetical coffee machine is not intellegent by your standard, then nothing that runs purely from an algorithm is sufficient to be consider intellegent either.

Babbage made his machine through his knowledge of physics and his knowledge of George Boole's work and theories.
And of course out of his imagination.
I am aware that computers dont know the information they are handling.But if you say that is so because they work on nothing but high and low voltages,let me remind you that we humans arent any different.The synapses that make our thoughts are nothing more than mere fluctuations of very low voltages.(lets not get too deep into this,it may be long).So why are we intelligent and computers not? ( through any other definition of intelligence you might have)

Quote: and what of its purpose? if we somehow were imbue with the algorithms without us ever being aware of what it actually solves - that is we just spiel out the result of the algorithm without ever experiencing a reflection of it, what is it then? wouldn't then any reflex of the body be an intellegent result even if the person is in a comma? how about sleep walking?

I must admit you kind of make a point there.

Quote: i think part of the purpose for inventing programming languages such as lisp, scheme, or ml is precisely to address that problem - namly the ability for a program to produce algorithms from its own data

Yes.They are just not yet good enough for us to call them intelligent.

Quote: Original post by ilavos
Babbage made his machine through his knowledge of physics and his knowledge of George Boole's work and theories.
And of course out of his imagination.
I am aware that computers dont know the information they are handling.But if you say that is so because they work on nothing but high and low voltages,let me remind you that we humans arent any different.The synapses that make our thoughts are nothing more than mere fluctuations of very low voltages.(lets not get too deep into this,it may be long).So why are we intelligent and computers not? ( through any other definition of intelligence you might have)

indeed, our brains work that way, but let me quote myself on a earlier post:

Quote: 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

we are intellegent because we experience things rather than just process them. for example, every picture one can conceived can be described though some rastor algorithms, without going into if a computer can actually see the picture as we see it (a thermometer, for example, can be conscious for all i know, but i would not be able to appreciate it nor would it, as i believe, be able to appreciate my consciousness), would you say that reading a picture rendered into a rastor algorithm is the same as seeing that picture? in fact the picture can be said to have present itself by reflect light in a very systematic way to our eyes, which happens to be in the right place to receive it, but is it more than light that the picture is reflecting or is it trying to present itself as a "picture"? the optics involved aren't the easiest thing to compute, after all, so is that process intellegent? perhaps the merit should go to the light, but is light intellegent?

Quote: Yes.They are just not yet good enough for us to call them intelligent.

what i reckon is that it will never be good enough to be intellegent because it is not complexity that makes intellegence, and there's nothing we can add to it other than complexity.

Quote: we are intellegent because we experience things rather than just process them. for example, every picture one can conceived can be described though some rastor algorithms, without going into if a computer can actually see the picture as we see it (a thermometer, for example, can be conscious for all i know, but i would not be able to appreciate it nor would it, as i believe, be able to appreciate my consciousness), would you say that reading a picture rendered into a rastor algorithm is the same as seeing that picture? in fact the picture can be said to have present itself by reflect light in a very systematic way to our eyes, which happens to be in the right place to receive it, but is it more than light that the picture is reflecting or is it trying to present itself as a "picture"? the optics involved aren't the easiest thing to compute, after all, so is that process intellegent? perhaps the merit should go to the light, but is light intellegent?

You see when you look at a music note sheet,unless you happen to be a muscian,you wont know what the music sounds like unless it is played.But to a muscian it makes sense.Same thing for the picture.
I dont know about you but to me the brain is a machine.Powerful and misunderstood,yes,but still a machine.The reason it seems so complex to us is because the mastermind that designed it (God) is far superior to us.Nevertheless,despite what it may seem like, all we do with our mind is retrieve, analyse and process information.I know the first thing this brings to mind is "what about feelings,emotions?".These are mere biological instincts proper to the survival of the species.We are not intellegent because we experience things but because of our ability to spontaniously solve never before encountered problems.

Quote: Original post by ilavos
You see when you look at a music note sheet,unless you happen to be a muscian,you wont know what the music sounds like unless it is played.But to a muscian it makes sense.Same thing for the picture.
I dont know about you but to me the brain is a machine.Powerful and misunderstood,yes,but still a machine.The reason it seems so complex to us is because the mastermind that designed it (God) is far superior to us.Nevertheless,despite what it may seem like, all we do with our mind is retrieve, analyse and process information.I know the first thing this brings to mind is "what about feelings,emotions?".These are mere biological instincts proper to the survival of the species.We are not intellegent because we experience things but because of our ability to spontaniously solve never before encountered problems.

you see, when you invoke the musician example, you still assume that it can be translated to experience and does so by the musician - as in, the notes themselves are still not music, somehow the musician still translates it into a form of experience rather than leaving it just that, as notes on a piece of paper. the question is, can you teach someone, who was born deaf, music? no, not just the ability to compose according to mathematic principles, but to actually to compose in accordance to his own musical bias, rather than some mathematical or visual bias. if he does not hear, he has nothing to based on regarding anything that involves the experience of hearing. or consider this: you know how sometimes when you close your eyes (before you faint for example), you sometimes see black and sometimes see white (it's really just an experience, since the whiteness/blackness you see wasn't caused by light, or the lack thereof, when you're about to faint) - ask a person who was borne blind, and explain all the matter related to seeing black and white, in neuro-science terms (if you want, you can add optics to it), then ask him whether he sees black or white when he closes his eyes. so he knows everything there is to know down to which brain cells fires electron at what rate when one sees black and all that when one sees white, yet, can he describe his experience even with that knowledge?

still, perhaps an example that you can relate would help to explain this better, can you point out the difference between infra-red (or any light with wave lenght outside of the visible spectrum) from any other light, like x-rays, without some from of instrument? you know what blue or red looks like, but you have no visual experience of infra red. the problem is, no matter how much data you have on infra red, you can never claim to have seen (i.e. experience) infra red because you don't visually respond to it (it produces no visual experience).

regarding complexity, i'm a skeptic, and i don't believe in god. but that doesn't matter, since the point is not to investigate the origin of this complexity (have we forgotten the problem of induction? and the agrippa's trilemma?) but merely the correct description of it. and no, having instinct is not what qualifies as intellegence, but without conscious experiences, nothing of such can come of a person.

actually, let me add to the refutation on the musician example:
can you teach a person who was borne deaf how the equal temperament (a side rant: for goodness sake, bach wrote on _well_ temperament, not equal temperament) sound like other than the mathematical representation of it?

Quote:
actually, let me add to the refutation on the musician example:
can you teach a person who was borne deaf how the equal temperament (a side rant: for goodness sake, bach wrote on _well_ temperament, not equal temperament) sound like other than the mathematical representation of it?

You could teach them by using the other senses, you could turn up volume and make them feel the music, this way you could teach the mood of songs by the beat of the song, their smoothness or excess in vibrations. Ears aren't the only way a person could sense music, as one person i knew that danced to the beat while being deaf, she sensed the music with her feet. She even knew when a person was coming to her front door. So i might say math could be a sense for a machine.

I want to add something else about conciousness: In my opinion conciousness is developed as we start our life, so I think this is a reachable experience. Because I think we are not born concious of our surroundings as I don't remember things from when i was 1 and a half years old and under.

ability to solve problems based on stimuli and past experience.

Btw, I don't think viruses are alive. You don't really kill them, but destroy them. They are nothing more than a DNA/RNA strain wrapped in protein. It's the cells that become effected that give them a life-like appearence.

Quote: Original post by lukar
You could teach them by using the other senses, you could turn up volume and make them feel the music, this way you could teach the mood of songs by the beat of the song, their smoothness or excess in vibrations. Ears aren't the only way a person could sense music, as one person i knew that danced to the beat while being deaf, she sensed the music with her feet. She even knew when a person was coming to her front door. So i might say math could be a sense for a machine.

"you could teach them by using the other senses" is precisely the problem, they don't know how perfect temperament sound like, they know how it shake like perhaps (that presuppose that they can experience something such as touch, same problem abound), and may be even able to sing along by synchronizing their voice box, but that doesn't answer the essential question on what is it like to feel like hearing music? or being a bat, if you want to read nagel.

intelligence is the ability to interpret past, and current senses and experiences to solve problems and to attempt predict future events (ie learning). also the ability to begin solve any given problem or situation implicitly.