Printable View
On my way home from uni I found out that
Q=I*C
Where Q is Intelligence, I is Information and C is Consciousness.
I also found out that it is useful for both Aritmetic and boolean calculus of Intelligence. Furthermore you can calculate with both elementary information as well as groups of information upto intelligence for individuals:
QiSQ=SInCn
On my way home from work I found some Jelly Tots in the door pocket of my car!!
Did you find anything else lying around there?
Intelligence!=Curiosity
I'm trying to keep this as elementar as possible, and calling it Intelligence is reasonable.
Curiousity on the hand could be a factor in the prime derivative Q´ dQ/dt
A pen, a CD, thruppence and a pair of my ex girlfriends knickers/Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
Did you find anything else lying around there?
OK, I see how information can be quantified but how can you quantify consiousness?
If not, your formula is useless! :p
Yep The cool thing about information is that it is quantificable.
Consciousness similarily is a quanta
Boolean Information:
True: Is definitive
False: Is not definitive
Aritmetic Information:
N amount of definitions.
Boolean consciousness:
True: aware
False: unaware
Aritmetic consciousness
N amount of awareness
Example:
Jim and Peter knows that Martin is a Sick Pervert
Martin doesn't know this himself and
John knows that Martin is pervert.
How much is the cumulative Intelligence?
Without giving the answer right away, I want to know if someone is smart enough to come up with it :)
Kedaman
Woe! Hold your horses a minute there. I'm not so convinced by your quantifying of consiousness. Could you explain a little more about how you can quantify consiousness? What is a quanta?
Oops i should have used the word Quantum instead, Quanta is plural of Quantum, which means amount :)
Take a piece of information, say conducted by say 2+4=X, X is obiously 6, make a survey on it, say a test in basic school, and 16 people passed it answering 6. This means C=16.
Sorry, still not convinced.
Forget groups of people for now, let's concentrate on an individual.
How do you quantify their consiousness?
:)Quote:
Originally posted by Arbiter
On my way home from work I found some Jelly Tots in the door pocket of my car!!
Would you care for a Jelly Tot, Pix?Quote:
Originally posted by Pix
:)
Thanks Arbiter, would you like some pixie dust?
Now why did a pair of your ex-girlfriends both leave their knickers in the door pocket at the same time. Very careless.Quote:
Originally posted by Arbiter
A pen, a CD, thruppence and a pair of my ex girlfriends knickers/
Must be an old car if you found a threepenny bit there!
I just want to say something now, so you can refer to it later.Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
Take a piece of information, say conducted by say 2+4=X, X is obiously 6, make a survey on it, say a test in basic school, and 16 people passed it answering 6. This means C=16.
Continue on, just ignore this until you're ready.
Anyways, so lets say this survey was done over the Internet,
and out of those 16, 3 were returned by an automated Random
Number Program. So, just because of a correct or incorrect
answer, Conciousness can be claimed to be present in the group?
And the Number assigned is identical with a group who had NO
RNG Progies whatsoever? Sounds to me that this Rating system
isn't too accurate, so if its innacurate, its useless, and someone
should start over again.
{btw, what if No One passed it? Granted, its a simple Question,
but if the test is in Apache, and you submitted it to Chinese
Natives, And none of them passed, Then your system would
judge them as Not Conscious?}
Jim.Quote:
Originally posted by Jim Brown
Now why did a pair of your ex-girlfriends both leave their knickers in the door pocket at the same time. Very careless.
Must be an old car if you found a threepenny bit there!
I lied about the ex-girlfriends knickers, it was just added for comedy value. I actually found my ex-girlfriends. Wondered where they'd gone... :rolleyes:
And it wasn't a threepenny bit (I wish!), it was actually three new pennies. I was playing on the fact that I'm from the North. The car's on a T plate.
My Nan has a thing on her mantlepeice which has two ha'pennies in (to rub together as per the old phrase). Cool as!
Pix,
What colour? I'm not going to disappear or turn into a walrus am I? And it has to match my clothes - beigey/browny jeans and a black jumper...
Kedaman,
I think you just picked up on this nifty little formula which may or may not be right, and now you're trying to make it seem you understand it which you clearly don't, and you should've kept your mouth shut in the first place.
I was wondering how you found out about it on the way home.... was it inside a bubblegum wrapper, or did someone leave a Reader's Digest on the bus....
But anyway what you should do, assuming you have one, is cite a reference - and not just a url, but preferably something subject to some peer review process, then we can assess it for ourselves.
Yeah Jim!
Give him a left, then a right, then another left, and then a quick kick in the nuts!
Ked,
Don't put up with that from him - headbutt him man!
Jim Brown
Err...I don't think there is a URL because I think it is one of Kedaman's theories. :rolleyes:
Well he said he found it out.... so maybe he fell off his donkey?
I'm trawling Google as we speak- found 100000-odd articles with the words in, but haven't yet found the right reference.
Jim,
I don't think you understand.
Kedaman is mad.
He see's things, he's visited by Angels - he's Mad!
Completely round the twist!
You're unlikely to find the right reference as it probably came from Keds warped and twisted mind.
Apart from that he's ok though... ;)
NotLKH
The survey represent a tool to investigate intelligence, it doesn't have to be perfect but doing it over internet is probably not a good idea. A regular exam in a classroom serves as a good example. Random number generators aren't nessesarily conscious, if you want to debate about that then go ahead.Quote:
Originally posted by NotLKH
Anyways, so lets say this survey was done over the Internet,
and out of those 16, 3 were returned by an automated Random
Number Program. So, just because of a correct or incorrect
answer, Conciousness can be claimed to be present in the group?
The current education system isn't worthless just because you want to have random generators involved. Some tests might be multiplechoise and could easily be cheated with throwing dices and such but the aims are to assume the students have a good base of information and can therefore provide an explanation as well, and have that as a criteria to give results. You can still guess but you will almost always be wrong so to speak.
Remember Q=IC not C=I. However they are very closely bound to each other, like current and voltage.Quote:
btw, what if No One passed it? Granted, its a simple Question,
but if the test is in Apache, and you submitted it to Chinese
Natives, And none of them passed, Then your system would
judge them as Not Conscious?
Jim Brown
I'm not even sure if this science has been discovered and published yet. Until that I'm the inventor. I wouldn't be surprised that similar ideas are out there but as a mathematician and philosopher i'm being very clear and definitive.Quote:
I think you just picked up on this nifty little formula which may or may not be right, and now you're trying to make it seem you understand it which you clearly don't, and you should've kept your mouth shut in the first place.
Simon
My theory works with groups as well as individuals, an aspect that i've been thinking about for ages, to break the walls of solipsism :cool: For a individual, aritmetic intelligence is simple; C is either 1 or 0. Conscious or UnConscious. Intelligence is therefore sum of all conscious information plus sum of all unconscious information by zero. in other words sum of all conscious information.
Now think about information that is aware by several people. A piece say I("We are wearing blue jackets today")=3, a group of 4 people doing so. Using the formula:
Q=I*C
We get Q=3*4=12.
The Intelligence is 12.
You didn't return Intelligence, you said Consciosness=16!Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
Oops i should have used the word Quantum instead, Quanta is plural of Quantum, which means amount :)
Take a piece of information, say conducted by say 2+4=X, X is obiously 6, make a survey on it, say a test in basic school, and 16 people passed it answering 6. This means C=16.
YES! RNG are Not Conscious!
But By your Survey, a Correct answer Returns 1 point of Consciousness.
You're not even conscious of your own mistakes!
:D
NotLKH
A survey is a tool for investigation, read above thanks :)
Kedaman
OK, C = 1 or 0. But, how do we know, for sure, whether something's consious or not? As far as I am aware, that is still one of the great mysteries of modern day science.
And as for information, although we can quantify it, how can we determine the sum of information in someone's brain (to work out their overall intelligence)?
What you're saying here, really, is that for a consious being, their intelligence is equal to the sum of the information in their mind. This sounds more like a measure of knowledge to me.
And I don't think it's fair to say that knowledge is the same as intelligence.
you guys have waaaaaay too much time on your hand :p
Simon
Can't we just say as it is Simon, We both are instrumentalist so something doesn't have to be. It just "is" because we define it for a usefull purpose. Everytime you see a human do you ask yourself if he/she is conscious? Everytime you see a rock, do you ask yourself if it's conscious? If you want to argue about a solipsistic view then wooaah :D I didn't know that about you ;)Quote:
OK, C = 1 or 0. But, how do we know, for sure, whether something's consious or not? As far as I am aware, that is still one of the great mysteries of modern day science.
Look, here's a big point for you: Information stored in your brain is not nessesary conscious. If you are asleep without dreaming, that is being unconscious, your intelligence is down to zero. When you dream your intelligence is pretty low, haven't you noticed that you're unable to do a lot of stuff just because you're "dumb" and are almost acting like a machine in your dreams.Quote:
And as for information, although we can quantify it, how can we determine the sum of information in someone's brain (to work out their overall intelligence)?
All i'm saying is Q=IC. We have discussed enough about consciousness so I hope you know what I mean by now.Quote:
What you're saying here, really, is that for a consious being, their intelligence is equal to the sum of the information in their mind. This sounds more like a measure of knowledge to me.
And, again, your survey returned C=16.Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
NotLKH
A survey is a tool for investigation, read above thanks :)
Wheres the Intelligence in That?
You seem to think you said Q=16.
You didn't.
You clearly defined your survey as returning a Number for consciousness of a group.
You have yet to give an example of a survey returning a number for
the intelligence of a group.
Thats all I'm pointing out.
And if you say "A survey is a tool for investigation" again,
then I'll bork you!
No, its Not. Being physically Unconscious has , as a condition of this condition, made the person who is Unconcious, unable to react to the environment around him/her. If you were unconscious, then Earthquakes, Loud Noises, the smell of a good home cooked breakfast, et all, would not affect you at all. HOWEVER, he who is in the deepest of slumbers, who isn't even dreaming, still reacts, and will "wake up" upon suitable stimulation.Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
Simon
If you are asleep without dreaming, that is being unconscious
So, I would hardly call that "Unconscious".
Kedaman
I am sensing a big communication barrier between us again so I shall endeavour to overcome it. ;)
Firstly, you have misuderstood me if you think that I regard myself as an instrumentalist. I am not.
As I understand it, an instrumentalist is someone who does not believe in seeking explanations. They want only mechanisms to deliver results. i.e. they seek formulas to predict the behaviour of systems. Once, they have a formula, they are happy. They don't care why the formula is, like it is.
Indeed, an instrumentalist believes it is futile and meaningless to even search for explanations to problems. They only want mechanisms for solving problems.
I, on the other hand, subscribe to the approach that the explanation is critically important. I believe that if a problem has a range of solutions, the one that offers the best explanation is the one I would use.
I'm not trying to be perdantic here. I was thinking more along the lines of assesing the intelligence of AI programs. According to your formula, the intelligence of a system is completely dependant on it being consious.Quote:
Can't we just say as it is
It's all very well assuming humans are consious and rocks aren't, but what about the things in between?
NotLKH
Ok this didn't get clear. The purpose of the survey is to determine the intelligence. Q, not C. My comment to simon served as a pointer for him to understand what C is. And for a survey including say 20 people 16 answering correct, Q=16*1+(20-16)*0, or simply Q=16*1=16. I am sorry for the inconvenience.Quote:
Originally posted by NotLKH
And, again, your survey returned C=16.
Wheres the Intelligence in That?
You seem to think you said Q=16.
You didn't.
You clearly defined your survey as returning a Number for consciousness of a group.
Ok, I don't want you to bork me so, let's take another one, just for your convenience ;)Quote:
You have yet to give an example of a survey returning a number for
the intelligence of a group.
A survey is put up on internet, (we're assuming everybody who answers are conscious and can only answer once and that they don't just guess) This time we have 3 questions not 1, so they will be able to get 0 to 3 points. Now when the survey is over we can group up the results per how many points and use this formula:
SQ=SInCn
and then add upp amount of people that answered 3 correct by 3, say 42*3=126, then the ones with 2: 15*2=30, 1:28*1=28, 0:11*0=0 and them sum up:126+30+28+0=184
Now let's use another method, just count the correct answers. what do you get?
You are absolutely right. Death is the absolute unconscious status. Coma is a very close one and Saying that someone is sleeping unconscious is pretty low. Thanks for pointing that out :)Quote:
No, its Not. Being physically Unconscious has , as a condition of this condition, made the person who is Unconcious, unable to react to the environment around him/her. If you were unconscious, then Earthquakes, Loud Noises, the smell of a good home cooked breakfast, et all, would not affect you at all. HOWEVER, he who is in the deepest of slumbers, who isn't even dreaming, still reacts, and will "wake up" upon suitable stimulation.
So, I would hardly call that "Unconscious".
Good Post, Kedaman!
:)
Simon
I think that is called pragmatism :) All pragmatics are Instrumentalists but not all instrumentalists are pragmatic.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Kedaman
I am sensing a big communication barrier between us again so I shall endeavour to overcome it. ;)
Firstly, you have misuderstood me if you think that I regard myself as an instrumentalist. I am not.
As I understand it, an instrumentalist is someone who does not believe in seeking explanations. They want only mechanisms to deliver results. i.e. they seek formulas to predict the behaviour of systems. Once, they have a formula, they are happy. They don't care why the formula is, like it is.
Indeed, an instrumentalist believes it is futile and meaningless to even search for explanations to problems. They only want mechanisms for solving problems.
I'd say the majority thinks like you, as do I, but we both subscribe the instrumentalist model as we defy defining any other than practical value of information.Quote:
I, on the other hand, subscribe to the approach that the explanation is critically important. I believe that if a problem has a range of solutions, the one that offers the best explanation is the one I would use.
Yes. Intelligence depends on consciousness by definition. It's not hard to apply any of this on AI, if it's reasonable to assume that something is conscious then do so. You don't use relativistic physics when you can approximate reasonably with classic physics do you?Quote:
I was thinking more along the lines of assesing the intelligence of AI programs. According to your formula, the intelligence of a system is completely dependant on it being consious.
It's all very well assuming humans are consious and rocks aren't, but what about the things in between? [/B]
Thanks :)Quote:
Originally posted by NotLKH
Good Post, Kedaman!
:)
Kedaman
No, sorry, I just can't accept this. What is "reasonable"? Say, on your survey, a random number of people who logged on were actually AI programs. You wouldn't have a clue which ones were consious and which weren't.Quote:
It's not hard to apply any of this on AI, if it's reasonable to assume that something is conscious then do so.
Your group intelligence calculation would just fall apart.
I don't subscribe to it anyway. I would define intelligence more along the lines of how effectively a system can turn data into information (extrapolate meaning from the abstract).
I agree that consiousness is part of the equation but I don't think it's as simple as a 1 or 0 value; surely there are different degrees of consiousness?
What kind of information are you talking about? Can't intelligence be many things, not just the ability to compute something or to do a complicated task?
Not according to Kedaman's definition it can't. It's just a measure of how much information a consious system contains.Quote:
What kind of information are you talking about? Can't intelligence be many things, not just the ability to compute something or to do a complicated task?
Information can we quantified quite nicely. It's all down to information theory. A statement has one bit of information for every yes/no question it answers.
Simon
SimonQuote:
No, sorry, I just can't accept this. What is "reasonable"? Say, on your survey, a random number of people who logged on were actually AI programs. You wouldn't have a clue which ones were consious and which weren't.
That's not the concern here. You might well pass a test by just guessing the answers, it's not impossible. You might even be a teacher in a class full of mechanical androids looking human without knowing it, should you go and check whether it's true or not? Why not? Because you are being reasonable, not paranoid.
The point is not to argue how you can cheat an investigation deliberately, but to give a definition for intelligence in a new science based on the theories of information and consciousness I have, furthermore also to expand from a solipsistic attitude.
If you want it explicitely: My theorem Q=IC doesn't concern measurement errors. Take for instance Ohm's law U=RI, is there an ampere meter that doesn't give a measurement error? No, there's always a inner resistance and you can't get never get it exact anyways. Does that makes Ohm's law useless? Why not? Because It's a reasonable approximation. It's not a question of verification, you can't ever know if it's exact or not, but you have your definitions and you rely on the measurements and get satisfied results, what else do you need? Science is for the instrumentalists.
Now for your counter proposal
What is Efficiency? Purely, subjective isn't it? Depends on what goal you have. What you aim for. How do you define it exactly? what is data? How does it differ from information? what is meaning? what is abstract?Quote:
I would define intelligence more along the lines of how effectively a system can turn data into information (extrapolate meaning from the abstract).
What is your proposal? How conscious are you today? Only 60kc, that's bad, you need some coffee ;)Quote:
I agree that consiousness is part of the equation but I don't think it's as simple as a 1 or 0 value; surely there are different degrees of consiousness?
Actually it's just that simple Simon. Per one information, you can either be unaware of it or aware of it. The degree of consciousness is just the "illusion" of having lots of unconscious information (or rather less conscious information than usual) causing low intelligence, which is actually what you should refer to instead.
MPrestonf12
Information is just every statement that you can answer yes or no to. What would you suggest to call intelligence?Quote:
Originally posted by MPrestonf12
What kind of information are you talking about? Can't intelligence be many things, not just the ability to compute something or to do a complicated task?
Computation isn't what I would call intelligence. Computation is plain a mechanical operation. A computer uses takes in instructions, input data and then output data. In other words, process data, according to instructions. Any task can be done with a computer but only a conscious being can be intelligent.
Simon
My definitions goes wider than that. It puts Information in direct conjunction with consciousness, or awareness and can be applied both for spreading of information as well as awareness, as a social science actually.Quote:
Not according to Kedaman's definition it can't. It's just a measure of how much information a consious system contains.
Kedaman
The scientific community is still split on the issues as to whether consiousness is mechanistic or dualistic in nature. Many believe that it is mechanistic and that would imply that we do just process data according to instructions (self programmed instructions...see self organising systems).Quote:
Computation isn't what I would call intelligence. Computation is plain a mechanical operation. A computer uses takes in instructions, input data and then output data. In other words, process data, according to instructions.
Still, if consiousness is not mechanistic, there is some sort of force/entity existing in some sort of other dimension that we cannot measure. How do we distinguish between systems that are mechanistic (not consious) and those that are dualistic (consious)?
It is not about cheating an investigation deliberately. The how point of your formula is that each variable must be measureable. You need to be able to measure (or detect) consiousness for your formula to be meaningful...not just guess at it.Quote:
The point is not to argue how you can cheat an investigation deliberately, but to give a definition for intelligence in a new science based on the theories of information and consciousness
This is not the issue. I'm not questioning how effectively one can measure any of the variables (well I am but not just that), I am questionning whether the relationships you are implying by your formula even exist!Quote:
Take for instance Ohm's law U=RI, is there an ampere meter that doesn't give a measurement error? No, there's always a inner resistance and you can't get never get it exact anyways. Does that makes Ohm's law useless? Why not? Because It's a reasonable approximation.
You are saying that, for a consious entity, the intelligence is equal to it's information. That sounds more like a definition of knowledge than intelligence. I definitely don't equate knowledge with intelligence.
Now, as to my definition...
Yes, that's exactly it. Information and meaning are entirely subjective. For a system to extrapolate meaning from data, it must turn it into information. That information is specific to the system and the efficiency of the process can be defined by determining how much data is lost when it is interpreted. i.e. If I can interpret more meaning from a given set of data than you, I am more intelligent.Quote:
What is Efficiency? Purely, subjective isn't it? Depends on what goal you have. What you aim for. How do you define it exactly?