I thought rather than just jumping onto one of the previous posts on another subject, that it might be a good idea to try and discuss what Intelligence actually is.

I say this because we've had many discussions about building AI's and intelligent systems, but we've never really discussed where true intelligence is derived. So I decided that I would (because of a pet discovery) start a topic off on it.

My thoughts are derived from thinking about the first lifeforms that developed a "reaction", it was a reaction to light to begin with, that would then unfold over time to other things, like feeding.

This meant that although these amoeba's didn't have a mass cluster of cells to make decisions it would still have "senses" so it could react.

I then realised, "This is where intelligence is derived", my chain of thought continued.

The evolution from singular cells to multiple cells meant that again the cells had to have "senses" to know that it had enough nutrients and light to cause the splitting of cells.

I then realised that for any animal to develop intelligence, it's Senses are key. For instance having a thought about food is the whole neural pattern not just sending a message across the brain but "sensing" it's arrival.

I then began to realise that we humans class ourselves as the higher specie, the ones on top, and we too are extremely "Emotional" beings. So in our evolution to become more intelligent we have developed emotions.

I mention all this because I've realised that for a Computer to emulate true intelligence, it can't just work with some program of juggling numbers and data, it needs the ability to sense.
Not sense as in just sight, smell, sound, taste and touch, but sense as in every part of it's being it has to be aware of.

The theory is the more aware, the higher the potential for intelligence.

[This will probably be re-written at a later date]

First i would like to thank you for starting this topic,
i fully agree on your theory, 10 years ago a started thinking about this same theory but ...

I really look forward for the feedback on this topic because i know this is IT !!!

The main problem with AI is that we know to little about it and there for could only create a LowLevelIntelligence and we want to fit that into a HighLevelBody witch it can't handle.

To create AI we should find the smallest and simplest form of intelligence.
And this we could do by assigning a definition to intelligence and look in our evolution tree for the moust urly form of inteligence.

If we could find this form then we could take a look at it's evolution and try to simulate it in a computerprogram.
But the main problem then would be, like in evolution, that only one in a million has the luck of being a nanoBit more intelligent then the others. So it would take us lot's of simulations to only get us a small step further.

How does it evolve ???
Simple by re-production !!!

But to simulate re-production you are stepping out of the world of intelligence and into world of instinct.

I really don't know , but this question would help us on finding a theory on "what is intelligence".

For example:
Is the urge to re-produce in order to survive as a spicies a form of intelligence ??? or just instinct ???

Is the urge to feed in order to survive as an induvidual a form of intelligence ??? or just instinct ???


If these examples are instinct what is intelligence then ???

err...hey stryds do you remember a guy named Zion who once started asking the same question in posts and i think you also actively replied...anyways...;)




bye!

Hi, Check the archives where we discussed a definition of Intel. But to take a new tangent as to at what level, IQ or evolutionary stage etc intellegence starts....

Yup Most agree intelligence requires interaction, which means input and output. Is a keyboard enough input ? Seems that this may be the case....

When does intelligence start. The answer seems to be when the thingy learns, meaning it changes its behaviour based on passed experience. Um it has to do that intelligently- circular argument ! Ok change that to changes its behaviour to optimise it's survival. This is ok if you allow changing to please the programmer/creator as survival behaviour.

P.S. My computer doesn't know, I know where my computers off switch is!

I am unsure as to what the actual definition of intelligence is (or if it can be defined). However, I do know that few people posses any of it.

How about this –

Intelligence is any process or mechanism that can react to externally derived information.

For the moment this does not describe the quality or complexity of the reaction or the quality and complexity of the input information.

For example a plant will react to sunlight and will re-orientate its position to optimize its ability to capture energy. This is simple intelligence.

Some people fit sensors to the outside of their homes that detect movement and subsequently turn on an external light. This again is a demonstration of simple intelligence.

Simple robots can navigate their way across a room and avoid obstacles en-route. The use of sensors provides information about the environment, and the quality of the programming provides appropriate processes that understand what to do with the input data.

A newborn human baby comes fitted with a battery of sensors but with virtually no processes or mechanisms in place to process the incoming information. Contrast this with a newborn chimpanzee that from birth can walk and manipulate objects in ways impossible for a human baby. The difference between them is their respective capabilities to develop new processes to deal with incoming information. The human simply has a larger capacity for variations and complexity although begins at a more primitive level.

All of this highlights two primary considerations –

1. Predefined processes.
2. A learning mechanism that can create new processes.

To a large degree we can consider predefined intelligent processes as being instincts, although this term is imprecise. And humans have many of these predefined “instincts“, some of which are time deferred – for example sexual attraction is a time deferred intelligent process, it kicks in when certain biological processes become active.

A perfect intelligence will have predefined processes that can cope with every possible combination of external inputs. This is a practical impossibility.

A learning mechanism allows for the creation of new processes. For example consider the learning process involved with learning to drive a car. The concentration and focus is intense at the beginning as new intelligent processes are being built. Once the processes are built then the ability to drive a car becomes seemingly instinctive.

That’s enough for an introduction for now.

Cris

Check this out,

The Mel Gibson of sciforums is back...

oh,i missed brilliant posts...

thanks for taking time from your busy schedule...;)
bye!

Hi zion,

How's it been here?

What have I missed?

And what is this Mel Gibson reference?

Cris

You didnt miss anything,hahahahaa...

I missed <i>your</i> brilliant posts...
i am sorry if i offended you...

PS:Mel gibson is a heroic ref. to you Cris...;)

bye!

Zion,

Offence? Nah, no problem.

It looks a bit quiet here. I'll see what i can do.

My original idea for the forum was to discuss and explore uploading, and then we widened the scope. I'd still like to start some topics on uploading but I'm not sure if there will be enough interest. Intelliegnce is certainly a key issue though.

Yeah,In fact when Km had started off this thread(Life inside a computer) i was pretty excited.we use to discuss a lot,by then you had taken leave of sort so we missed your inputs a lot.It was like i,Stryd,Km discussing...and then the interest begin to wear off.
this was partly because most of the sci-forums topic were same as were discussed earlier.take for instance Human science forums,the dreams topics has been discussed millions of times and it still continues to be hot among us,though we will never come to any conclusions...isnt it?
anyways lets hope the same urge that this Intelligence forum had will come back...




bye!

"The use of sensors provides information about the environment, and the quality of the
programming provides appropriate processes that understand what to do with the
input data."

That 'understand'????

Poor, poor Cris. He's finally gone over the edge. Oh well, it was nice interacting with
him when he was still somewhat rational.

I shall treasure the memory forever.

Take care ;)

"We must respect the rights of the dissenters, even though they
.might be idiots or harmful." - Wau Holland - (Died 07/29/01) -

Zion

I don't think the topic wore off about "Life inside a computer", I think it was more likely that only so much can be said before people start repeating, so it kind of dried up.

as for Cris's "understand" there is a point that presently programming and intelligence systems work on macro orientation which is triggered by a reasoning through a boolean equation or a fuzzy logic. (In my understanding of it, it's where the process is traced so far down each route to see which one works better).

There is still the point that although an equation can be made through these methods of deciding how to handle branches, true intelligence defines which destined path it wants not just because of a direct ergonomic and decisive analyse, but because "It feels that it should pick that one".

In certain respects with organic counterparts it's possible that our very sensations can be triggered through universal paradoxes. (Have you ever stayed at home because of a bad feeling or a hunch? it's possible that going against that feeling would have continued that feeling for a little while, that's why some people don't feel they can work, go out or go to school).

This of course stems onto the discussion of destiny, but to nip it before it goes too far I'm suggesting that we "sense" destiny to make a decision.

Also I suggest that where humans have dulled their sense of smell, sight and sound, our perception of the world has increased, our analysis and our method to virtualise what could be through imagination.

Chag,


That 'understand'????

Poor, poor Cris. He's finally gone over the edge. Oh well, it was nice interacting with
him when he was still somewhat rational.

I shall treasure the memory forever.LOL. So yor gonna giv me a hard time huh?

BTW – thanks for the birthday greeting back in September – it was kinda appreciated but I was trying to ignore the event and pretend it wasn’t happening. But it was nice that you noticed.

So you think ‘understand’ is imprecise here, right? It isn’t. And I don’t mean in terms of the more complex AI that Stryd is suggesting regarding fuzzy logic etc. I’ve been coding since 1969 and it is not uncommon to talk of code in terms like this.

Understand - from Webster - 3 : to interpret in one of a number of possible ways.

Don’t think that intelligence always has to be complex. The example I gave of the plant demonstrates a simple biological mechanism that understands what to do with a set of sensory information.

When I say a process understands something it means that the process has a predefined set of rules or algorithms that can be applied to a set of inputs and then produce a specific output or outputs.

A common method for describing the relationships between inputs and outputs is to specify a truth table. This is a matrix that defines all possible inputs, and what actions must be taken upon certain combinations of inputs.

Your brain works very much like this. Or rather each of your neurons works exactly like this. A neuron will receive multiple inputs from other neurons, usually interpreted in the form of voltage potentials, and then depending on the total potential within the cell it will either fire or not. Here we have multiple inputs with a seemingly binary output, but not quite. The neuron can also produce a variable strength output.

In this case the neuron is a simple intelligent mechanism that ‘understands’ what to do given a variable number of inputs. For reference, a typical neuron will fire at about 200 times per second, not very fast compared to current microprocessors.

Stryder,

When I started coding, compilers were very fussy about having very exact syntax. More recent compilers are far more lenient and include fuzzy logic in many cases. For example I remember when a compilation would fail on an error like – missing comma. The newer compilers will now give a warning and insert the damn comma for you, however, where there are multiple errors then fuzzy compilers will only go so far in trying to interpret the author’s intentions before deciding that an accuracy threshold would be exceeded.


"It feels that it should pick that one".I have trouble with such a clause. While Chagur attempted to chastise me over ‘understand’ I think that ‘feels’ goes too far. This gives the impression of a mystical imprecise process in action. Fuzzy decisions are not too complex and are usually, based on ranges of values, tolerance levels, and threshold ranges. This may give the impression of subjectivity or randomness but underneath, the result generated is entirely based on a well-defined algorithm with a perfectly reproducible result given identical inputs.


In certain respects with organic counterparts it's possible that our very sensations can be triggered through universal paradoxes. (Have you ever stayed at home because of a bad feeling or a hunch? it's possible that going against that feeling would have continued that feeling for a little while, that's why some people don't feel they can work, go out or go to school). I think feelings/hunches are no more than the brain interpreting available inputs in a certain manner. I’m not sure what you mean by universal paradox though.

Are you suggesting some form of mystical process occurring here rather than just brain processing?


This of course stems onto the discussion of destiny, but to nip it before it goes too far I'm suggesting that we "sense" destiny to make a decision.Do you really mean that you can sense destiny or did you miss a word and really meant the opposite? I hope so otherwise I will have a big problem with that idea.

What a relief!

Cris didn't go over the edge!

He's just as wordy as ever!

And still in his own little world.

Take care :cool:

PS re.Sept.: Just did it to rag you :D


"We must respect the rights of the dissenters, even though they
.might be idiots or harmful." - Wau Holland - (Died 07/29/01) -

Yeah I know. You are really just one big cynical softie.

You do realize of course that you are a computer as well, but just made from bio-matter instead of silicon.

You know me oh so well Cris :D

Gee, it seems like just yesterday I was being told I was just
a complex PBX exchange. Ain't technology wonderful!

Take care ;)

"We must respect the rights of the dissenters, even though they
.might be idiots or harmful." - Wau Holland - (Died 07/29/01) -

Cris

I'm sure you've probably heard of an adaption of:

"Don't be like an oak that can break in the storm, be like the willow that bends".

I mention this because this is what I'm explaining by "sensing destiny", the Universe is like that Storm.

To us we interact with it, but the universe is far more vast with far more weight and to try and stand against it, we would fail.
The "sensing" comes down to a Dynamical effect of unified fields, where as the universe causes force and we have to "bend" to it.
(although most of the time, we are unaware of the bending)

I mention this because I've been looking at FTL communication paradoxes and how they create Fractal algorthyms that certain systems would have to work out how to make "sense".

If you could view the universe from an observatory position, then you'd probably see it repeat itself (destiny) through loops, but because we see it in relation to existing in it, we think we have the ability for free will and random decision. (This is where philosophy discussion truly stem from).

There is this possible fact that we sense the field changes, of the universe we exist in and other universes we co-exist with, which have occured from some "fuzzy" decision.

Chaos dictates that the more amount of time that passes after a fuzzy decision, the less effect will occur from the alternative decision.

(This is because those fields are made of infinite possibilities that cause infinite encoding while still staying compressed to the a multiworlds confinement)

[Someday I'll make it clearer lol]

Stryder,

Ok I think I can see what you mean and I kinda like the idea of the universe being a pattern of repeating fractals. But this seems more philosophy than technology.

I mention all this because I've realised that for a Computer to emulate true intelligence, it can't just work with some program of juggling numbers and data, it needs the ability to sense.
Not sense as in just sight, smell, sound, taste and touch, but sense as in every part of it's being it has to be aware of.

The theory is the more aware, the higher the potential for intelligence.

What is sense but a flow of data? You touch something and your brain tells you weather it is soft, hard, wet, cold, hot, etc. based on what you have already learned or on an ability you are born with. You aren't completely self aware. For example, you "will" yourself to make a fist and you do, why and how it happens is essentially irrelevant to you. Likewise computers don't need to be completely aware of every aspect of their function in order to become intelligent.

In a sense intelligence is nothing but the process of recieving data, processing it, and reacting in some way (i.e. making decisions). Though computers don't have the same senses as us (sight, sound, etc), they have other senses and could potentially interpret the data from those sensory "organs" and react in an intelligent way (keyboard/mouse input, incoming data over a network, etc).

In order for the computer to seem intelligent to us, we need it to emulate a human behaviour/interaction in a believable way. But in order to make it do what we do, we need to fully understand what it is we actually do ourselves.

Gentlemen....good afternoon. I am new here but hope to find an excellent programmer by these posts. So far, no luck.

A little over twenty years back I had the occasion to be forcefully driven into the subject of intelligence. We will not go into what caused it but I can start with this. Please try to follow two simultaneous thoughts.

For very obvious reasons the first place to start my research were my two-volume Funk&Wagnal and large Mirriam House Websters' dictionarys. The first thing I discovered (when lexicographers were still lexicographers) is that the words "smart" "intelligent" and "intellectual" were absolutely unrelated. Twenty years later....they meant the same thing!!!

At any rate this is the way it goes. We have two seperate hemispheres, that is, the left hemisphere and the right hemisphere, which are exactly 180 degrees opposite.

In practice, the left brain is the material memory while the right brain is the abstract brain, which thinks in symbology....a universal charicteristic commonality.

But there are THREE different minds. When we speak of the left brain, we are discussing how "smart" you are and how much retention you have. The faster you can learn; the longer you can retain and the speed that you can recall, the SMARTER YOU ARE.

The left brain may also plug into the right hemisphere and think of answers or solutions not already known. Therefore, the less you have to know to find the answer or solution, THE MORE INTELLIGENT YOU ARE.

Then, of course, you may also elect to think only in the right hemisphere, known most commonly as the intellect. In MY dictionarys it states, "The mind by which one 'knows' ."

In other words, to be very intellectual, one must not be a paraphraser but commune with some higher mode of reality by which he learns and knows things not otherwise known.

SO....in order to simulate human intelligence one must have two computers. One computer must be the "smart" computer, while the other one must think only in abstracts.

The smart computer must have a vast understanding of reality and all that is the material senses, while the abstract computer must be able to interact with the smart one on que. If it is successful, it will be essentially, a self-learning computer. The smart computer must be programmed to ask questions when it does not know.

knows things not otherwise known.

I am confused @#$%...

Is that like "he eats food that is not there"...

Anyway, all information is processed from data. Roughly the application server and the database server together make up the whole system - just like a human being. One can put all the functions in one system, whether they have two processors or 256.

One can break it down to print server, input server, communication server and so on...but the principle is the same...

Intelligence means in Turkish language "Zeka":D

Cris

Okay you'll have to forgive me the month plus wait for a reply, IRL is a handful that needs sorting.

Anyway, my explanation of fractals could be further enhanced. You might well class it as "philosophy", but what is the discussion of theory other than a method to postulate how to go about solving a problem or dilemma.

I should perhaps of inserted an explanation of how a short instance of time is more controllable to a longer one. This is proven with Chaos theory. (as proven as a theory can be).

If I was to say "I'm going down the shop now", that instance I'm destined for the shop with a clue as to where my destination is, but over the length of time it takes me to get there, I could find myself whisked away on some magical journey and never reach that destination.

This is why I mentioned that information travelling at FTL speed would cause an effect where a short distance it knows where it's going but a longer chronological distance and it can lose itself to entropy.

The idea for the usage of fractals is a method of blending fractals back into a structure can allow that entropy to be transversed and chaos navigated. Possibly covering the method of how to deal with the paradox of timespace manipulation.

(I know that probably sounds like a host of buzz words clustered together, but you'd get a better understanding if more information was available from the worlds laboratories that are working in the field of Quantum Encryption/Manipulation.)

Adjectives have no definitions alone. Intellegence is an adjective word. Joe is an intellegent man. It is better to measure the complexity of an animal or machine. To do that count the sensors. Count the motors. Sensors/motors is the functional complexity.
The data flow of any active machine is:
Nature -> sensors -> brain -> motors -> Nature
Note the loop. With this we can measure. There is no intellegence there.

Harold