Definition Intelligence

[kedaman]

Simon
You seem to be misunderstanding the point of science. We don't define something, then tries to measure it. We experience something, want an explanation based on the measurements, then come up with reasonable definitions.

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).

If we are actually mechanistic and act based on instructions then the consciousness is not that mechanism, it's the one that experiences the instructions. Sort of a guy watching a movie. It's still intelligence to be conscious about it.

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)?

Are you considering solipsism? Why? Do you you really want to defy the social acts and experiences? I don't think so. We are social beings, it is a rational paradigm and even pragmatics act socially, we need each other and that's where it becomes a practical issue. That's a reason for science too.

It almost seems like we have switched roles, why?

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.

We detect photons all the time, do we count them? no, still we "know" about how light it is out there. Similarily we "know" who we are talking to, an unconscious stone, a sleeping man or a fully conscious student sitting in a class.

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!

My simon how you have changed. Suddenly you just start asking about if things exist Where is your sense of reason now?

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.

knowledge? Excuse me but how do you define knowledge? If you define it as conscious information, then you are underestimating it's actual implication. Conscious information are basically by all means how we are able to operate and understand anything at all, without it we would be D-E-A-D. With it we are able to measure, process and why not output information, that's a reasonable paradigm to even think about thinking.

Now, as to my definition...

Yes, that's exactly it. Information and meaning are entirely subjective.

Didn't you just said that information is statements that can be answered yes and no to? That's not subjective at all.

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.

So, how do you measure this data loss then? HOW EXACTLY? How are you suppose to know what is unknown to you and what is not? Can you give me a simple explanation? Besides who am I then? How do you know if i'm conscious or not? Huh? Aren't we pretty much standing on the same ground?

[NotLKH]

Originally posted by kedaman
MPrestonf12

Information is just every statement that you can answer yes or no to.

So, hmmm.

What is it when you get the answer to "What color is that Crayon?"

yes?, No?

If someone says "Blue", then that ISN"T Information? {Since it isn't yes or no}

-Just a wonder
-Lou

[beachbum]

I agree with Jim Drivel rating = + 10

[beachbum]

Originally posted by Arbiter
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!

LOL the diplomatic service needs YOU!

[simonm]

NotLKH

What is it when you get the answer to "What color is that Crayon?"

This statement contains information in the same way that a simple statement that has a yes/no answer.

What Kedaman should have said is that a statement contains one bit of information for every yes/no question it answers.

The information contained in that sentance depends on the context. If one crayon was picked randomly from a pack of five, it contains 5 bits of information: Is it Yellow? No; Is it Green? No; Is it Red? No;Is it Blue? Yes; Is it black? No.

Kedaman

If we are actually mechanistic and act based on instructions then the consciousness is not that mechanism, it's the one that experiences the instructions. Sort of a guy watching a movie. It's still intelligence to be conscious about it.

No, the point of what I'm saying is that many people believe that consiousness itself is mechanistic. They beleive that there is no mystical additional entity.

Are you considering solipsism? Why?

I most certainly am not!
I am talking about a particular problem. A problem that I wish to find a solution to. How to measure the intelligence of an AI program. If, it's intelligence is completely dependant on it being consious (which I agree that it is), then we need a reliable means of determining when a given system is consious.
Consiousness itself is, as yet, unexplained. It needs an explanation. That is not pandering to solopsism.

Similarily we "know" who we are talking to, an unconscious stone, a sleeping man or a fully conscious student sitting in a class.

Once again, you use black and white examples. What about the grey ones in between?

My simon how you have changed. Suddenly you just start asking about if things exist

I am not questioning whether consiousness itself exists. I, intuitively, believe it exists. What I am doing is questioning the relationship (as you have defined it) between information, consiousness and intelligence.

Excuse me but how do you define knowledge? If you define it as conscious information, then you are underestimating it's actual implication.

I don't define knowledge as consious information. Knowledge is just a collection of information, it doesn't have to be consious.

Didn't you just said that information is statements that can be answered yes and no to? That's not subjective at all.

No I didn't. See the above definition.
A statement does not convey the same information to everybody. To continue with the crayons example.
If I am sitting there with my hands behind my back and the red crayon in my hand, the statement made by someone else that they had the blue crayon only contains 4 bits of information (I already had the answer to one of the yes/no questions).
Say I was someone else who didn't even know how many crayons there were in the pack. The statement now contains a stupendous amount of information. A bit for every possible shade of colour that I can conceive of.
As you can see, the information conveyed in a statement is entirely dependant on the subjective perception of the recipient. It depends on what they know already.

[kedaman]

Simon

No, the point of what I'm saying is that many people believe that consiousness itself is mechanistic. They beleive that there is no mystical additional entity.

Simon, define to me what mystical means. If it's not something you can define, that is how you define it i mean, then what's the point in defining it? Look, if mechanistic is "physical" then physical refers to whatever that is existant and "I think therefore I am" automatically means that Consciousness is physical and mechanistic no matter what you say. The question would rather be whether the rest of the world you experience is physical or not. However I thought we overcame that now. We agreed on that we should choose to subscribe the information that is most usefull.

I am talking about a particular problem. A problem that I wish to find a solution to. How to measure the intelligence of an AI program. If, it's intelligence is completely dependant on it being consious (which I agree that it is), then we need a reliable means of determining when a given system is consious.
Consiousness itself is, as yet, unexplained. It needs an explanation. That is not pandering to solopsism.

You apply science, say you apply Ohm's law on a circuit, do you ask yourself if the circuit exist? No you assume it is there because you experience it. The same way a teacher experience a class of students. Not because the students are intelligent, but because they act intelligent, the teacher assumes that they are conscious as well.
Now look at the AI program, if it is suppose to act intelligent, then it simulates intelligence, and therefore can be considered intelligent and thefore consious, for a practical reason - note the parallell drawed to that earth is a perfect solid sphere when calculating the gravity field around it. Even if you "know" it's not a perfect sphere, (an instrumentalist would say it is but only for this case) you get approximative results that are good enough.

Once again, you use black and white examples. What about the grey ones in between?

Isn't there these in all sciences? Why looking at them now when we can look at the examples where it would be usefull? Would you dismiss a science just because it won't explain something particularily? Classical Physics for instance? Besides, can you give me a concrete example, and that AI one was plain practical.

What I am doing is questioning the relationship (as you have defined it) between information, consiousness and intelligence.

Can you elaborate?

I don't define knowledge as consious information. Knowledge is just a collection of information, it doesn't have to be consious.

A statement does not convey the same information to everybody. To continue with the crayons example.
If I am sitting there with my hands behind my back and the red crayon in my hand, the statement made by someone else that they had the blue crayon only contains 4 bits of information (I already had the answer to one of the yes/no questions).
Say I was someone else who didn't even know how many crayons there were in the pack. The statement now contains a stupendous amount of information. A bit for every possible shade of colour that I can conceive of.
As you can see, the information conveyed in a statement is entirely dependant on the subjective perception of the recipient. It depends on what they know already.

Hmm.. How do you define something you "already know"? Can it be conscious, or do you have to fetch it from your unconscious? I'm thinking about a more objective definition of information: as a definition. So within a definition links to other definitions are all information as well, constructing a cascade of information. Words that are ambigous are not information, Only when a particular definition is choosed as a result of evaluation information can be quantified. Okay maybe this will only work if we assume the point of view of somebody out there that has no clue about anything.

[Kzin]

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. Furthermore you can calculate with both elementary information as well as groups of information upto intelligence for individuals:

QiSQ=SInCn

The horoscope people would love you

Units of Q, I & C please

[kedaman]

Originally posted by Kzin


The horoscope people would love you

Units of Q, I & C please

Kzin, sometimes I wonder what you really want to say, I know you know something but you're hiding it.

Information, Intelligence and Consciousness are quanta, I could assign units to differentiate between them but thats not an issue now.

[Beacon]

Ok kedamn my first post here and i havent read all posts so i dont know if some one has said this.

But your equation fails to incorporate Environment!
The mind and it's surrounding environment are inseparable.

As Dave Cliff AI expert said:
"To judge intelligence in a meaningful way you have to do it relative to some population"

[kedaman]

Originally posted by Beacon
Ok kedamn my first post here and i havent read all posts so i dont know if some one has said this.

But your equation fails to incorporate Environment!
The mind and it's surrounding environment are inseparable.

As Dave Cliff AI expert said:
"To judge intelligence in a meaningful way you have to do it relative to some population"

Nonsense! That's the whole point with choosing absolute scales, take a look at Kelvin versus Celsius for instance, why are relative scales dismissed?

[Beacon]

Whats nonsense???
What you dont believe that environment plays a huge part in the workings of the mind and intelligence or what Cliff said?

[Jim Brown]

me.ignore(kedaman)=true

Just got quieter in here.

[simonm]

Kedaman

That's the whole point with choosing absolute scales, take a look at Kelvin versus Celsius for instance, why are relative scales dismissed?

Err...Why is looking at Kelvin and Celsius helping to illustrate your point. Which if these is dismissed?

Everything is measured with relation to somethign else. Everything is relative.

[kedaman]

Originally posted by simonm
Kedaman

Err...Why is looking at Kelvin and Celsius helping to illustrate your point. Which if these is dismissed?

Everything is measured with relation to somethign else. Everything is relative.

Ok, so it wasn't a absolute-relative relation No environmental variables are scope invariant, which means information encapsulate the interface for environment.

[simonm]

?????????

[kedaman]

how about:

Environment is information.

[Jim Brown]

..... now.

With Kedaman switched off, and me only reading the replies from others, it actually makes more sense.

[Beacon]

If your equation was to be true you need an environment variable please i'm open to be proved that you dont!

The question How Intelligent Are You?
Is pointless because intelligence depends on the environment and cant exist independently of it.

Proof:
Joe Wakeling's and some other bloke's experiment using "minibrains" or simple neural networks.

[Beacon]

Other way round.
Consciousness is in direct contact with the environment is conscious information.
But still either way you cant have no environment!

[Beacon]

ahahaha

How funny is that my post in reply to yours below my kedaman is in front of yours

[kedaman]

Beacon
Environment in direct contact with consciousness is conscious information.

[kedaman]

Sure is weird something to do with the vb-world time screwed up yesterday?

Originally posted by Beacon
Consciousness is in direct contact with the environment is conscious information

And what does this mean? Consciousness is derived from information? Can you explain your explain?

[Beacon]

"Consciousness is derived from information?"

Is it?? If i'm knocked unconscious are you saying i'm not getting any information?

"Can you explain your explain?"

Sorry! I'm saying that the environment cant be in direct contact with consciousness it has to be the other way round.
Consciousness is in contact with the environment because thats where consciousness is getting it's information.
And according to you to be conscious relies on information correct?

[kedaman]

Let's finish this first, you come here with your own terminology so to be able to do any logical algebra we must have the same symbols for the definitions.

1. Consciousness is in direct contact with the environment is conscious information

I didn't realize you had an is there, in fact i took it that this was a standard is a relationship, but you have two is; A is in contact with B is C, which doesn't make any sense. Can you rephrase?


2. I'm saying that the environment cant be in direct contact with consciousness
it has to be the other way round.
Consciousness is in contact with the environment

Isn't contact a mutual relation? Even if transportation of information is onedirectional it's still a connection between two entities? In what reference is this critical as a definition?

[NotLKH]

Originally posted by kedaman

2. I'm saying that the environment cant be in direct contact with consciousness
it has to be the other way round.
Consciousness is in contact with the environment

In agreement, but just one Small point.

The use of the words "Direct contact" in relation to "consciousness" and "environment" is impossible, since one is Physical, and the other is, at least as far as I can tell, Non-Physical. There Must be an Interface to allow interaction and interpretation. Hence, senses and sense organs.

So, at best, in either direction, there can only be InDirect contact between the two.

Also, is it too bold of me to say that in the real, physical world, there is no such thing as information?

It seems to me that new information is the product of a resident
consciousness analyzing the interpreted data passed to it thru interfacial channels derived from outside the consciousness.

-Lou

[simonm]

NotLKH

It seems to me that new information is the product of a resident
consciousness analyzing the interpreted data passed to it thru interfacial channels derived from outside the consciousness.

My point exactly. I have changed the emboldend part however from information to data.

i.e. Information is interpreted data.

[kedaman]

NotLKH

Originally posted by NotLKH
In agreement, but just one Small point.

The use of the words "Direct contact" in relation to "consciousness" and "environment" is impossible, since one is Physical, and the other is, at least as far as I can tell, Non-Physical. There Must be an Interface to allow interaction and interpretation. Hence, senses and sense organs.

So, at best, in either direction, there can only be InDirect contact between the two.

Point taken into account. My explanation is:

Even though you won't ever know how exactly the original data looks like the outcome (the interpreted information) is a function of it's source, which may or may not contain transformators, my point is that these will be taken into account in evaluating information as a function. So as Q=IC and I=T(x), then Q=T(x)C where x is environmental data and T() the overall tranformation x is encountering. In Control Enginering you use the Laplace transformed functions to obtain an algebraic expression for the time dependent transformation, but until we take into account time derivatives we won't do that. To keep it simple Q=IC considering I a layer for T(x) we replace T(x) with a mathematical model that produces the same output.

Also, is it too bold of me to say that in the real, physical world, there is no such thing as information?

Engineers always work with information flow, to produce mathematical models. Next you can argue which is more real, information or physical reality. The answer is that information represents their physical equivalents, even if there is no physical world present, just the information you recieve and send.

It seems to me that new information is the product of a resident
consciousness analyzing the interpreted information passed to it thru interfacial channels derived from outside the consciousness.

That is what I have decided to call intelligence.

[NotLKH]

Originally posted by simonm
NotLKH

I have changed the emboldend part however from information to data.

i.e. Information is interpreted data.

Thanks. Thats what I meant to type. Missed it when I proofed.

[NotLKH]

Also, I thought of this the other day.

It seems that since Consciousness and Intelligence are so intermingled that attempting to define one, then the other is similar to haveing two individual 2 variable equations, and setting up the problem solving algorythm to try to solve for X from the first, THEN Y from the second, which is clearly impossible.

The approach needed might be similar to solving simultanious equations.

[kedaman]

That's why we have mathematical models, matrices and differential calculus.

[NotLKH]

Originally posted by kedaman
NotLKH
...
That is what I have decided to call intelligence.

Hmm.
Perhaps there is No such thing as "Intelligence"?

"Intelligence" seems to be more of a Judgement of how "Effective"
an Entity one has chosen to call "Conscious" has processed externally derived data into "Rational Information".

So, "Intelligence" seems to require at least 3 people. 2 to form a majority judgement of what "Rational Information" is, and then a Third, to feed data to, and to Judge.

{People is being used generically to represent a group of "Conciousnesses" that can intercommunicate with each other.}

[Osiris]

C is either 1 or 0. Conscious or UnConscious

This formula is in kinda intresting but what i dont agree with is
the value given to C, because not all of us would have the same
amount of conciousness, if you multiply all the information by
counciousness, and if C = 0, then that means the whole answer
is 0, meaning that the Q(intelligence) = 0 therefore saying that
the individual is braindead, i would agree if C > 0, (some people
are more concious than others)

[kedaman]

Originally posted by NotLKH


Hmm.
Perhaps there is No such thing as "Intelligence"?

"Intelligence" seems to be more of a Judgement of how "Effective"
an Entity one has chosen to call "Conscious" has processed externally derived data into "Rational Information".

So, "Intelligence" seems to require at least 3 people. 2 to form a majority judgement of what "Rational Information" is, and then a Third, to feed data to, and to Judge.

Let's say we could perform this frictionless, with something like mind reading, you transfer information without any transformation. Ideally this would be analoguous with supraconduction. Would that make your intelligence unlimited?

[kedaman]

Originally posted by Osiris


This formula is in kinda intresting but what i dont agree with is
the value given to C, because not all of us would have the same
amount of conciousness, if you multiply all the information by
counciousness, and if C = 0, then that means the whole answer
is 0, meaning that the Q(intelligence) = 0 therefore saying that
the individual is braindead, i would agree if C > 0, (some people
are more concious than others)

The definition is Q=IC, not Q=C. Although and what we were discussing a particular case Q=IC,I=1 => Q=1*C, in other words per information.

[NotLKH]

Originally posted by kedaman

Let's say we could perform this frictionless, with something like mind reading, you transfer information without any transformation. Ideally this would be analoguous with supraconduction. Would that make your intelligence unlimited?

Now what we're getting into, is Information = Knowledge?

I'll get back to that in a minute.
First, let me Disagree with/Qualify myself.

A single conciousness CAN self-evaluate the analysis its
performed on the data its received. It can determine how
effective it has processed the data into "Knowledge", thru
observation of how well external events conform to Expectations
developed from what it thinks is "Effective Rational Information",
or "Knowledge". So, in effect, it can Determine how "Intelligent"
its self is.

But this rating is more of a "How Satisfied" it is with the comparison of Its Expectations vrs Actual Results, and the being can only see if its Less Intelligent than it wants to be.


So, As used in the above statement, "Knowledge" is "Effective
Rational Infromation", ie.. If the "Rational Information" Generates
a Thought Process that effectively produces expected results,
then the conciousness has "Knowledge" of something.

And, Needless to say, From a Group Perspective, "Intelligence" is
a judgement on the "Knowledge" of a Conciousness, thru
Observation of its interactions with the world, and/or thru
intercommunication, after having passed to it some "Data" to
process.

But, lets assume this "Frictionless" Information gathering. It
seems to me this would be similar to "Rote Memorization", So,
even though it now has "New Information", has it
actually "Processed" it into "Effective Rational Information"?

It might allow the Concious Entity to be observed to react to
Stimuli "Intelligently", But, {shudder, don't say it lou!!!} this kind
of reaction, similar to "Rote Memorization", might be more akin
to "Instinctual Response", reacting properly, but based more on a
general feeling of "this is what needs to be done now", then as a
calculated response.

So, I think, in your thought experiment, "Intelligence" doesn't
necessarily increase thru this "Frictionless" gathering, although
you would still get the desired response.


Let me think on that some more.

[NotLKH]

Originally posted by NotLKH

But, lets assume this "Frictionless" Information gathering. It
seems to me this would be similar to "Rote Memorization", So,
even though it now has "New Information", has it
actually "Processed" it into "Effective Rational Information"?

It might allow the Concious Entity to be observed to react to
Stimuli "Intelligently", But, {shudder, don't say it lou!!!} this kind
of reaction, similar to "Rote Memorization", might be more akin
to "Instinctual Response", reacting properly, but based more on a
general feeling of "this is what needs to be done now", then as a
calculated response.

So, I think, in your thought experiment, "Intelligence" doesn't
necessarily increase thru this "Frictionless" gathering, although
you would still get the desired response.


Let me think on that some more.

OK. Thought a little more.
I think you're right!

IF, as I previously stated, thru this "Frictionless" process, the Conscious entity does indeed react more instinctively with this "New Infromation" than as a "Calculated Response", that represents the Ultimate in "Knowledge". That is what Every individual desires to acheive as they go thru an Educational Process. What better way to perform is there, if their "Knowledge" has become so Ingrained, there is no effort whatsoever in Using this knowledge.

Reacting properly thru Instinct vrs "Calculated Response" maximizes efficiency and Does, indeed, display that a conciousness has attained "High Intelligence".

So, It seems that Any who Downgrades "Instinct" as being an
undesirable trait of a lower form of conciousness are misled.

Hmmm.
-Lou

[kedaman]

Originally posted by NotLKH
[B]

Now what we're getting into, is Information = Knowledge?

I'll get back to that in a minute.
First, let me Disagree with/Qualify myself.

You don't have to disagree, we're completely considering your argument, and also your definition of knowledge.

A single conciousness CAN self-evaluate the analysis its
performed on the data its received. It can determine how
effective it has processed the data into "Knowledge", thru
observation of how well external events conform to Expectations
developed from what it thinks is "Effective Rational Information",
or "Knowledge". So, in effect, it can Determine how "Intelligent"
its self is.

Are you suggesting verification trough consistensy over time? What abour a blind man, is he intelligent just because he sees black all the time and consider himself being intelligent just because he can see black all the time?

But this rating is more of a "How Satisfied" it is with the comparison of Its Expectations vrs Actual Results, and the being can only see if its Less Intelligent than it wants to be.

Do you suggest intelligence is proportional to happiness? Pretty stupid to be unlucky?

And, Needless to say, From a Group Perspective, "Intelligence" is
a judgement on the "Knowledge" of a Conciousness

Your definition of knowledge contains parameterized efficiency, introducing a group would cause unmeasurable complexity wouldn't it?

, thru
Observation of its interactions with the world, and/or thru
intercommunication, after having passed to it some "Data" to
process.

Considering the unmeasurable distortion of information how are you suppose to calculate with intercommunication?

But, lets assume this "Frictionless" Information gathering. It
seems to me this would be similar to "Rote Memorization", So,
even though it now has "New Information", has it
actually "Processed" it into "Effective Rational Information"?

Processing? Now you're having information distortion, parameterized efficiency, groups trough intercommunication, you've opened a 5000 piece puzzle here, can you get the pieces together?

So, I think, in your thought experiment, "Intelligence" doesn't
necessarily increase thru this "Frictionless" gathering, although
you would still get the desired response.

I'm just helping you think, thanks for your input

[NotLKH]

Originally posted by kedaman

You don't have to disagree, we're completely considering your argument, and also your definition of knowledge.

The "Group" Perspective, and My disagreement with Myself, derives from the post I placed before this post you commented on. I think you missed some of its points.

Anyways, In and Of itself, a Blind Conciousness, without any other Conciosness around to inform him of anything, can only judge itself as "Intelligent". It cannot rate itself as "How Intelligent", because that would require an External Comparison, ie.. He would have to be One of a Group of Conciousnesses that can Intercommunicate, in order to determine "How intelligent" he is.

An Individual Conciousness can only rate its "Intelligence" by a "Satisfied/Dissatisfied" rating, since there is no "Other" conciousnesses around for comparison. In this Non-Group Example.

After all, wouldn't you agree that a conciousness, that belongs to no group {By which I mean there is no other Conciousness that it can detect either directly or indirectly that it associates itself with, {which, communication is the best and most effective way of judging a beings "Conciousness"}}
MUST be considered The ultimate Intelligence of its Set?
Of course, We can't consider that, because if we're around to actually "consider" anything, means that no such lone individual conciousness exists that we know of.

{heh, Knowledge of a condition destroys said condition. Interesting...}
{'Course, Heisenburgs principle involved}

-Lou

[kedaman]

Do you suggest such a comparation can be done at all? Mathematically speaking of course...

[NotLKH]

Can a comparison be achieved mathematically?

Only a Biased one.
But that is what Q=I*C is doing already.

Q=I*C is only as Valid as I.

{Although, I think it should be more specifically Q=K*C, where K = Knowledge, Where Knowledge = "Effective Processed Information".}

"Information" in this equation is only judged to be "Valid' information by a group opinion. What I mean is, in order to perform this measurement, a Set of information must have been gathered before applying this Equation. The Information used in this equation must be "Valid" to begin with, or else the results of this Eq. would be Nonsense. So, Someone, or SomeGroup, must have determined the "Validity" of this information in order to determine that, yes, this is Information that should be used to Determine the resultant Q. So, In order to determine the Validity of this Information, The qroup is biased by its own Preconception of what is Worthy Information. This Bias is based on the Groups own self-Judgement of its own Intelligence. So, in effect, the Outcome Q is a comparison between an Individual and that of a much larger group.

But, again, "Knowledge" is a better determining factor of Intellegence than "Information".