X-Message-Number: 8591 Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 11:44:04 -0400 From: "John P. Pietrzak" <> Subject: Digital Shakespeare and John Pietrzak's Definition of Intelligence References: <> John K Clark wrote: > >John Pietrzak wrote: > >>John K Clark wrote: > >>>John Pietrzak wrote: > >>>What more do you want!!!! > >>I want the number. > >You're not going to get it. > I know. Finally! At last, that's over with. [ on complexity, complexity, complexity (three times as complex!) ] > >[...], every iteration of [an] algorithm increases it's > >complexity. > > I'm saying it certainly increases something, I'm saying that the AIC > is measuring something too but not the only thing of importance and > it's of limited usefulness anyway because we can never find what it > is, and I'm also saying a that a consensus on the definition of > complexity has not been reached and the idea remains hazy at best. So, in other words, you're not saying much. > You're saying complexity is AIC and that's all there is to it. > You're wrong. No, I'm not saying complexity is AIC, once again let me repeat that I'm not saying anything about the AIC at all! I'm talking about process, not content. I don't care if the process results with zero, one, or an infinite number of characters; if it only takes a handful of steps to perform the algorithm, and those steps are repeated, I claim that the repetition does not add to the complexity of those handful of steps, only the time it takes to finish the process. Oh, forget it. I've been repeating my claim over and over again, so by now it must be far too complex for you to understand. Don't worry about it. [ Instinct vs. Training ] > I didn't assume anything of the sort, what I said what that neither > you or I or anybody else has a definition of intelligence that's > worth a damn, so if we want to explain the concept to somebody else > or if we're trying to determine if someone or something as > intelligence, we can only do it by example, The Turing test. So, in other words, we're going to explain something we don't understand to someone else so that they can understand it? I don't understand. [ definitions of intelligence ] > >my interest in intelligence is to find a good, universally > >applicable definition. > > Good luck. You'll need it. Thank you! I can use all the help I can get. :) [ Prejudicial definitions of intelligence ] > And the moral is that you need to understand something before you can > give it a meaningful definition, otherwise you run into injustice. Exactly! So STOP using the Turing Test! [ On Attribute X vs. Intelligence ] > >I'm not interested in the glorification of a purely arbitrary > >category. note: ^^^^^^^^^ > > Abstract? I gave concrete examples, talking philosophy, writing > novels, finding a theory as great as Einstein's. You gave concrete examples. Thank you for your concrete examples. We all enjoy looking at your concrete examples. What can we do with your concrete examples? I have no idea, I don't know why you chose them. In fact, _you_ don't know why you chose them; if you did, you'd have some sort of definition of intelligence. Otherwise, as I said, your choices are purely arbitrary (not abstract, arbitrary). > You have not given me a hint about what you think intelligence is, > except that whatever it is only meat can do it. Oh, would you like to know _my_ definition of intelligence? (Up to this point, nobody had asked!) First, let me repeat what I just said in my last message: I didn't say only meat could be intelligent, but there are aspects of meatly intelligence that haven't been seen in silicon yet. Also, let me repeat what you already know, I don't have a good definition (yet), but I do have some good prerequisites (in my opinion, of course). Ok, let's see here. I look at the world, just as John K Clark does, and find that there are certain things I associate with intelligence; novels, poems, theories, symphonies, rockets. But I don't stop there. I need to move from this in two directions: (1) in what way are those objects associated with intelligence, and (2) why did I make that association? (1) These objects are all constructs (made of words, ideas, sounds, "rocket parts"). These constructs do not occur naturally. And, these constructs have, for me, some "meaning" (as Thomas Donaldson noted in his previous message): In the process of my perception of them, they exercise some section of my mind which other structures (natural or otherwise) that I perceive in my life do not. Because of this I label them as the results of "intelligence". (2) These objects themselves are not intelligent (at least not yet :)), but they were created by some other agent, and because of them I'm (intuitively) labelling that agent as having intelligence. Why? Again, I turn to that portion of my mind which I call "meaning", but this time I project myself in the role of the agent who made the construction. Would I have had to use that section of my mind to create the construction, or could I have done it without it? If I could have done it without that part of me, then I've been tricked, the construction seems to be meaningful but the constructor probably didn't build it for that purpose. Otherwise, the constructor _did_ use something akin to the "meaning" portion of my mind, and so I call him/her/it intelligent. Considered in this way, I can impose some constraints upon that which I would call intelligent. The intelligence I propose is a "constructive" one. It must have intensionality: it can't just spend all day thinking, it has to make choices at some point. It must have competence: it can't just choose randomly, it must act in such a way as to bring it's constructs into existence. This basically requires the ability to plan (in order to use the facilities available to the agent to create the construction) and the ability to remember (in order to implement the steps of the plan). Intensionality, competence, planning, memory: I can do all this today with a computer. Meaning, however, I cannot yet simulate. It is the last key necessary to fully understand intelligence, in my opinion. In my argument above, I had to try and act like the constructing agent, to see whether the "meaning part" of my mind would be exercised in creating a construction. If I could, however, understand meaning apart from myself, I would have a fully objective definition of intelligence. (Earlier I criticized Thomas about how meaning is defined, but he is right, whatever it is we call "meaning" is at the heart of the matter.) (Thanks to all readers for bearing with the length of this message. If you have any comments, please send them to me, as I said above I can use all the help I can get. :) ) John Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8591