Quote:Original post by smitty1276

Everybody is just talking in circles anyway. He asks a question, somebody answers it, then he deconstructs the answer by ignoring a few simple and obvious facts, thereby coercing someone new to correct him, and the cycle repeats.

my stand, and I believe everyone's stand, is that were all reactions (space, matter, time) and therefore everything is capable of the same functions. The word "intelligence" is a (selfish) term given by humans in refrence to humans, excluding the very raw data we are made of ourselves. Excluding the very engines, the h2o, the chemicals which fuel our supposed "intelligence". It is because of these microscopic particles along with sources of energy, that we are intelligent/concscious (or at least we think we are) and therefore

either A. All is intelligent
or B. None is intelligent.

it is similar to saying that minorities are less intelligent than majorities. Where is that line drawn? At pigmentation? At sex cells? at organelles? Weve only counted less than 100 elements. Those elements some are in us but all are abundant in the universe. they make our intelligence (at least in function and brain matter). Take those away, and youve taken away our intelligence. They make up our ability to reason and therefore if an objects create reason, it is those objects that are intelligent, though at a low level when not grouped with other reason inducing objects.

Quote:Original post by headfonezExcluding the very engines, the h2o, the chemicals which fuel our supposed "intelligence". It is because of these microscopic particles along with sources of energy, that we are intelligent/concscious (or at least we think we are) and therefore either A. All is intelligent or B. None is intelligent.

Are you saying that h20 molecules possess either (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations ... OR ... (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria?

Where on EARTH did you get that idea?

It is because of spark plugs that your car is able to transport you, therefore either a) spark plugs AND your car can transport you or b) neither your spark plugs nor your car can transport you.

Does that make sense to you?

what can I say concepts are selfish things..
If they have not been then we would all have a series of concepts depicting just the whole universe and nothing more.
How would you convey info?
On the other note, I think the reason they created ( humans not me :) ) the concept was because they could relate to the way those r.systems react and interact(a human could react more complex than a plant but could not grow leaves or fruits).
This behaviour that differentiate a human and partially animals from rest of the world (mostly inanimate objects from a materialist point of view, though we operate with concepts :) even when we speak about concrete objects) and involve using the brain-because the start of position for defining intelligence was intentional behaviour,but as the concept grew a larger base, most brains activities were considered intelligent and after that all that mimicks intelligent human behaviour and is sitting on the same base were considered intelligent.
After this, the people tried to explain.What definitions they got to is not interesting.But we are not trying to attract universe's votes, so most of us limit themselves here.
Everyone is free to draw the line for intelligence wherever even if only for political reasons..( :) )
But as I think we should understand each other, u should stop to a border closer to general mentality or you will be misunderstood by the rest.


P.S.It is nice to see taking decision is actually an automatic reactive system..It gives you the chills..

P.S.P.S.It just occurs( ok maybe I had this idea before, but I forgot it) to me definitions in dictionary are just using concept to define concept like a set operation..they all have sets underground

[Edited by - vallentin on March 23, 2006 4:07:32 PM]

synergy: the whole is more than the sum of the parts.
emergence: those behaviours of a system not directly attributable to the set of behaviours of any individual entity within a system

Intelligence in humans and animals arises from the interplay of many functional subsystems. These systems are clearly synergistic (as an example, we don't find intelligence within any single region of the brain, just functional processing of information) and intelligence is (at best guesstimate) therefore an emergent property of the brain as a system.

As for debating artificial versus natural intelligence, there is an indistinct line between the two. Humans like to believe they have natural intelligence (that it wasn't created or planned, but is a natural side-effect of our biology), but we also see artificial intelligence as planned intelligence (that is, creating (designing and implementing) a system which we expect to behave intelligently). The problem is that most systems that act intelligently aren't expressely programmed with intelligence, but rather are allowed to learn to act intelligently by collecting data and interacting with an environment. Personally, I think we should drop the whole debate of natural versus artificial and just concentrate on working out what it actually is in the first place! ;)

Cheers,

Timkin

Quote:Original post by headfonez

Quote:Original post by Oberon_Command
My definition of an artificial intelligence is thus:

Any non-organic and human-built entity (otherwise known as a machine) that appears to emulate the mind of an intelligent lifeform (such as humans or dolphins).

Just because somebody made you doesn't mean you are artificial. You have to be inorganic to be artificial. That's my take on it, anyways.

what is the difference between an inorganic substance and an organic substance. For example if i make a working cell that has no mitochondria, is it inorganic or is it still organic?

Is it even possible for a large cell to work with no mitochondria? (other than small stuff like bacteria, which don't have a nucleus or (AFAIK) organelles)

In any case, it would still be organic because it is made out of organic materials. If you were to build a biological computer, I would not consider it to be an AI, I would consider it to be a genetically engineered organism.

On the other hand, if you took a silicon-based lifeform (hypothetical), and changed it by mucking around with it's genes to get a computer, I would not consider it to be an AI, since it is a genetically engineered lifeform. A human-built computer cannot be considered a lifeform, since it doesn't eat, it doesn't produce any waste products, it doesn't produce it's own energy, and it can't reproduce.

I think a better definition of an AI is "an intelligent entity that is purposely designed, built, and installed in the target body". This applies to computer game AI because: a) It can be considered an intelligent entity, since it has the ability to react to it's virtual surroundings and take appropriate actions; b) it was designed, built, and installed in the game world by humans, therefore it is intelligent. This also applies to robots; they are intelligent entities that can react to their surroundings, and their "minds" have been designed and installed in their bodies by an external figure (humans).

By this definition, a robotic brain installed in somebody's head would constitute an AI. Also, by this definition I would consider a brain genetically engineered specifically for a new host and installed in the host body to be a "biological AI". I don't think that's an actual word, but it seems to fit.