From: Rob Harris (rob@hbinternet.co.uk)
Date: Mon Nov 29 1999 - 03:32:19 MST
>OR: how would you describe the "intelligent system" used by use
>by a bacterium to achieve its "strictly defined goals"? "It doesn't
>have a central nervous system, so how can it have one?" Then
>how did we get one? Not because we needed to! Think about it.
As always with these kinds of debates, the problem lies in the premises. It
seems we differ in our ideas of the meaning of "intelligence". The rule of
thumb is - it doesn't mean anything, but you'd hardly call a static finite
state machine "intelligent", so some dynamic characteristics are required.
Ask yourself how you would decide if your machine has "intelligence". You'd
have serious trouble - not because the data is hard to get, but that the
concept of intelligence is an animal fitness function, not an objectively
observable entity that you can measure. Alan turing knew this when he
invented his test of intelligence - the imaginatively named Turing Test. He
realised that "intelligence" could not be measured by anything other than a
human (as it is a human "fitness function"). The test involves giving your
AI to a human for evaluation - if the human thinks the program is
intelligent, then it is. The test involves no empirical measurements at
all - after all, what measurements would you take?
These days, probably due entirely to marketing, everything with a hint of
dynamic behaviour is named "intelligent" - and it may as well. After all -
if you designed a self-sustaining and repairing, replicating, evolving,
little machine out of atoms - you'd not refrain from calling it
"intelligent", and rightly so !
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:53 MST