how do you?
I wonder what on earth you have been doing in 3 pages if not discussing artificial intelligence and without knowing what intelligence means?
Printable View
how do you?
I wonder what on earth you have been doing in 3 pages if not discussing artificial intelligence and without knowing what intelligence means?
Kedaman
Who said that we don't have definitions about what intelligence means?Quote:
I wonder what on earth you have been doing in 3 pages if not discussing artificial intelligence and without knowing what intelligence means?
I think we have been concentrating on the aspect of intelligence that includes self-awareness. I'm not saying that is all there is to intelligence but it is what we have been mainly concentrating on.
In addition, when we talk about AI, we are normall concerned with replicating our own brain functions (be that intelligent or not).
And you know what intelligence means? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
how do you?
I wonder what on earth you have been doing in 3 pages if not discussing artificial intelligence and without knowing what intelligence means?
We were discussing aspects of intelligence - learning, self-awareness, etc.
Of course it's bloody subjective, we don't need a logic-bishop to let us know. :rolleyes:
AI = Absolutely Indifferent :(
Rjlohan
STFU, when i'm asking the questions
Simon
is selfawareness essential to intelligence?
If not then what binds selfawareness to intelligence, and why does it exist in separate form? Why call it intelligence then?
If yes, then why?
how do you test selfawareness?
Kedaman
I don't know if it is essential to intelligence but it is the type of intelligence that we're interested in creating with respect to AI.Quote:
is selfawareness essential to intelligence?
If we could create an AI program that was consious, that would prove that consiousness is entirely mechanistic.
Well, as to that, I am unsure. How do we test animals to see if they are self-aware? I have have heard that they believe chimanzees to be self-aware because they are capable of recognising themselves in the mirror.Quote:
how do you test selfawareness?
However, I don't even know how I could prove to you that I am self-aware, let alone a computer program.
Simon
Ok, is there a mechanistic definition then?Quote:
Well, as to that, I am unsure. How do we test animals to see if they are self-aware? I have have heard that they believe chimanzees to be self-aware because they are capable of recognising themselves in the mirror.
If I knew how to define consiousness mechanistically, I would be able to write a self-consious AI program.Quote:
Ok, is there a mechanistic definition then?
Suffice to say, I can't. :rolleyes:
Then what on earth are you speculating for? If it is not of a mechanistic nature, then it doesn't exist right?Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
If I knew how to define consiousness mechanistically, I would be able to write a self-consious AI program.
Suffice to say, I can't. :rolleyes:
I didn't say it didn't exist. I just said that I didn't know what it is.
However, the search for a mechanistic definition will continue for ever or until someone proves conclusively that it can't be done.
how about saying its unscientific on the spot? oh why not? you could say that to absolutely everything and voila, you can't distniguish scientific from unscientific thigns anymore, which makes science a useless notation.
No. Well, I agree that we must first come up with a testable definition before it can be viewed as scientific but I don't see any reason at this point in giving up on it.Quote:
how about saying its unscientific on the spot?
Sorry, I don't follow.Quote:
you could say that to absolutely everything and voila, you can't distniguish scientific from unscientific thigns anymore, which makes science a useless notation.
"All planets have eliptical orbits" is a scientific statement because it prohibits anything that we call a planet moving in an orbit of any other shape than an ellipse. And we can observe the motion of the planets and easilly falsify that statement if it were indeed, not the case.
All we need to do is define intelligence and then subject AI programs to a test that checks how well they fit this definition. A scientific definition of intelligence will prohibit certain types of behaviour that, if observed, will falsify the claim that a particular AI program is intelligent.
Look, my point was that you can't dismiss anything as unscientific with that attitude.
What attitude is that, exactly? What should I be dismissing, exactly?Quote:
Look, my point was that you can't dismiss anything as unscientific with that attitude.
you can say that for everythingQuote:
Originally posted by simonm
I didn't say it didn't exist. I just said that I didn't know what it is.
However, the search for a mechanistic definition will continue for ever or until someone proves conclusively that it can't be done.
Kedaman
Not really. We know intelligence exists (if we define ourselves to be intelligent) although we are still unclear of exactly what it means to be intelligent.Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by simonm
I didn't say it didn't exist. I just said that I didn't know what it is.
However, the search for a mechanistic definition will continue for ever or until someone proves conclusively that it can't be done.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you can say that for everything
What is it, exactly, that a consious being can do that an unconsious being can't do? What is it that entails consiousness in one entity and not in another?
The answer to these questions will either be scientific or metaphysical. If the answer makes testable predictions, then it is sceintific.
For example, those who beleive that a "soul" entails us with consiousness are not making a scientific assertion. Why? Because it is untestable and therefore it is non-empirical.
However, if I described some form of pattern or logical structure that would exhibit behaviour that met my definition of consiousness, I could test that assertion by replicating that pattern in a computer program (for example).
Simon
You are evading my point. How do you know intelligence exists? you can't test it, and no i'm not talking about your own intelligence, i'm talking about others, and that is definitely totally different things
Kedaman
What does intelligence imply? What implies intelligence? If we can answer those questions, it will be testable.
If I write a supposedly "intelligent" program, what behaviour will I expect it to exhibit? What sort of observable behaviour in nature is indicative of intelligence?
I don't have the answer. However, that does not mean that it is not worth considering.
Simon
To me it sounds like, "how do we know if its really a unicorn?" an intelligent program would act intelligent, in other words, not make stupid decisions that instead of smarter ones. Isn't this the reason why there is such a word at all?Quote:
If I write a supposedly "intelligent" program, what behaviour will I expect it to exhibit? What sort of observable behaviour in nature is indicative of intelligence?
I don't have the answer. However, that does not mean that it is not worth considering.
You're a bloody nob...:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
Rjlohan
STFU, when i'm asking the questions
LOL:D:D:D:D:DQuote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
You're a bloody nob...:rolleyes:
Dude, you were just owned by Ked ....
If you say so. I missed it I guess.
And then he sold him to me... well actually he came free with 2 Ethiopians.. :D
Jello speaking more leet? :o :D
You both got had then - my warranty expired months ago... :p
I need to move to Australia or Austria or Greenland or wherever you guys are from so I have a clue what the hell you're saying. Is there like a Australian to English dictionary online somewhere?
What do you need explained to ya mate? Bloody Jethro's gone sheila on us again, his missus won't fetch the coldies and BB's on the flamin' dole, pinching monet of us battlers. What's up tiger?
Sounds like you are one of those Alan Jones' battlers from Struggle Street with that sort of art collection :rolleyes: :pQuote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
What do you need explained to ya mate? Bloody Jethro's gone sheila on us again, his missus won't fetch the coldies and BB's on the flamin' dole, pinching monet of us battlers. What's up tiger?
Words I understood:Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
Bloody Jethro's gone sheila on us again, his missus won't fetch the coldies and BB's on the flamin' dole, pinching monet of us battlers. What's up tiger?
gone
on
Us
again
his
missus
won't
fetch
the
and
of
what's
up
tiger
Total words understood = 14
total Words not understood = len(rjlohan.comment) - 14
Sentences understood
What do you need explained to ya mate?
What's up tiger?
Total sentences understood = 2
The rest :)Quote:
What do you need explained to ya mate?
Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
Rjlohan
STFU, when i'm asking the questions
Define asking???
;) :D
Actually yeah there is, and an Americanese <-> English one too in the same place ;) I've seen them somewhere but don't know the link.Quote:
Originally posted by cafeenman
I need to move to Australia or Austria or Greenland or wherever you guys are from so I have a clue what the hell you're saying. Is there like a Australian to English dictionary online somewhere?
Ok, let's see - Jethro's a big girl. His wife still hasn't brought me my beer, and BeachBum collects welfare money to support his cocaine and elderly-peeping-tom habits.
Get it yet?
:p
BB - I'm over hearing that word - it's getting a big resurgence of late I reckon. :p
Every newscaster in the bloody country starts off with some claptrap about 'battlers'. Then shows footage of Poor Joe StockBroker in hhis new Porsche, and explaining how hard it must be that the government fined him $50 for throwing his cigarette butt out the window whilst he was driving through the Pitt St Mall....:rolleyes: :p
Yep. Thanks. Actually, I think I deserve a cookie. I figured out the beer thing after I read the post a fouth time with no help from anybody! :)
Hey rj, I'll buy you a beer when you buy me a voddy and cranberry sweets;) :D
[coochy-coo]Quote:
Originally posted by cafeenman
Yep. Thanks. Actually, I think I deserve a cookie. I figured out the beer thing after I read the post a fouth time with no help from anybody! :)
Ok, here you go - you're a good boy aren't you? YEs you are. Yes you are....
[/coochy-coo]
Sorry, I was a mite peckish...http://www.vbforums.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=959456
Quote:
Originally posted by DragonFly
Hey rj, I'll buy you a beer when you buy me a voddy and cranberry sweets;) :D
D'oh! But yours is more expensive....:(
Okay rj, I'll buy you two :)
Cafeenman.... you may find this helpful
with thanks to MrC for originally posting it :)
http://www.australianexplorer.com/australian_slang.htm
mmmmm...... <gurgles> mmm.... <half chokes to death on a walnut>Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
[coochy-coo]
Ok, here you go - you're a good boy aren't you? YEs you are. Yes you are....
[/coochy-coo]
Sorry, I was a mite peckish...http://www.vbforums.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=959456
<keels over on floor clutching is throat desperately trying to breath>
<throws himself over the back of a chair in a self-inflicted heimlich maneuver and spits walnut across room>
<takes breath, retrieves walnut and eats it>
Got any more? :p
Bollocks isn't on any of the lists. :(Quote:
Originally posted by DragonFly
Okay rj, I'll buy you two :)
Cafeenman.... you may find this helpful
with thanks to MrC for originally posting it :)
http://www.australianexplorer.com/australian_slang.htm
Bollocks is a Pommie or Pomgolian expression. not aussie ;)
It means Bull****... or technically it means testicles.. but generally means bull****... especially if said by HarryW
G'day Harry , how they hanging? ;)
:D
Bollocks = you're full of ****e mate - do you get your theories from the Ricki Lake show, or what?
(And I belive you may find that word in a Pom slang dictionary anyway... :p)