[OT] Re: a.i
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 09:12:01 +1100, Derek Parnell
<ddparnell at bigpond.com> wrote:
>Intelligence might have something to do with predicting the future based on
>what we know now.
Guessing a possible or probable outcome, er, maybe...
My $0.02:
One big bug bear with a computer program is that "7" just means "7".
It doesn't. 7 is the same as seven, and the same as a film with brad
pitt, morgan freeman, and gwyneth paltrow, 1+6, 2+5, 3+4, +3+4,
-(-3)-(-4), the position I came in the 200m run when my dad actually
turned up in 1979, dot dot dot. An important part of intelligence is
that I might slow down, but *never* run out of new references to 7,
even if I have to start making them up..
BUT, if you get that, it can be emulated.
If you dont get it, you'll get nowhere.
The other side is simple. We judge intelligence in a very biased way.
How can 1's and 0's ever add up to intelligence? Well, cut a neuron
out of your brain (it won't hurt). Examine it. Sure you have several
trillion of them but can you explain how that one neuron could ever,
with as many friends as it likes, create intelligence? No.
Further, the bias is ingrained and arrogant.
Example: You know how to walk, right?
Rubbish! explain then why it took decades to make a machine do it.
You do not know how to walk, you just can.
So maybe intelligence requires a degree of ignorance to work?
(Sarcasm:possible, Truth:probable)
That's it, I'm done (for tonight)
Pete
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
