If I were standing there catching the pencil and directing it to the spot on the floor, you wouldn’t consider the pencil intelligent. The behavior observed is not pointing to the pencil in particular being intelligent.
Just my two cents.
I don’t know anything about the concept of intelligence being defined as being able to pursue goals through complicated obstacles. If I had to guess at the missing piece it would probably be some form of self-referential goal making. Namely, this takes the form of the word, “want.” I want to go to this spot on the floor. I can ignore a goal but it is significantly harder to ignore a want.
At some point, my wants begin to dictate and create other wants. If I had to start pursing a definition of intelligence, I would probably start here. But I don’t know anything about the field so this could have already been tried and failed.
Well I would consider the Pencil-MrHen system as intelligent. I think further investigation would be required to determine that the pencil is not intelligent when it is not connected to MrHen, but that MrHen is intelligent when not connected to the pencil. It then makes sense to say that the intelligence originates from MrHen.
The problem with the self-referential from my perspective is that it presumes a self.
It seems to me that ideas like “I” and “want” graph humanness on to other objects.
So, I want to see what happens if I try to divorce all of my anthrocentric assumptions about self, desires, wants, etc. I want to measure a thing and then by a set of criteria declare that thing to be intelligent.
So, I want to see what happens if I try to divorce all of my anthrocentric assumptions about self, desires, wants, etc. I want to measure a thing and then by a set of criteria declare that thing to be intelligent.
Sure, that makes perfect sense. I haven’t really given this a whole lot of thought; you are getting the fresh start. :)
The self in self-referential isn’t implied to be me or you or any form of “I”. Whatever source of identity you feel comfortable with can use the term self-referential. In the case of your intelligent pencil, it very well may be the case that the pencil is self-updating in order to achieve what you are calling a goal.
A “want” can describe nonhuman behavior, so I am not convinced the term is a problem. It does seem that I am beginning to place atypical restrictions on its definition, however, so perhaps “goal” would work better in the end.
The main points I am working with:
An entity can have a goal without being intelligent (perhaps I am confusing goal with purpose or behavior?)
A non-intelligent entity can become intelligent
Some entities have the ability to change, add, or remove goals
These changes, additions, deletions are likely governed by other goals. (Perhaps I am confusing goals with wants or desires? Or merely causation itself?)
The “original” goal could be deleted without making an entity unintelligent. The pencil could pick a different spot on the ground but this would not cause you to doubt its intelligence.
Please note that I am not trying to disagree (or agree) with you. I am just talking because I think the subject is interesting and I haven’t really given it much thought. I am certainly no authority on the subject. If I am obviously wrong somewhere, please let me know.
If I were standing there catching the pencil and directing it to the spot on the floor, you wouldn’t consider the pencil intelligent. The behavior observed is not pointing to the pencil in particular being intelligent.
Just my two cents.
I don’t know anything about the concept of intelligence being defined as being able to pursue goals through complicated obstacles. If I had to guess at the missing piece it would probably be some form of self-referential goal making. Namely, this takes the form of the word, “want.” I want to go to this spot on the floor. I can ignore a goal but it is significantly harder to ignore a want.
At some point, my wants begin to dictate and create other wants. If I had to start pursing a definition of intelligence, I would probably start here. But I don’t know anything about the field so this could have already been tried and failed.
Well I would consider the Pencil-MrHen system as intelligent. I think further investigation would be required to determine that the pencil is not intelligent when it is not connected to MrHen, but that MrHen is intelligent when not connected to the pencil. It then makes sense to say that the intelligence originates from MrHen.
The problem with the self-referential from my perspective is that it presumes a self.
It seems to me that ideas like “I” and “want” graph humanness on to other objects.
So, I want to see what happens if I try to divorce all of my anthrocentric assumptions about self, desires, wants, etc. I want to measure a thing and then by a set of criteria declare that thing to be intelligent.
Sure, that makes perfect sense. I haven’t really given this a whole lot of thought; you are getting the fresh start. :)
The self in self-referential isn’t implied to be me or you or any form of “I”. Whatever source of identity you feel comfortable with can use the term self-referential. In the case of your intelligent pencil, it very well may be the case that the pencil is self-updating in order to achieve what you are calling a goal.
A “want” can describe nonhuman behavior, so I am not convinced the term is a problem. It does seem that I am beginning to place atypical restrictions on its definition, however, so perhaps “goal” would work better in the end.
The main points I am working with:
An entity can have a goal without being intelligent (perhaps I am confusing goal with purpose or behavior?)
A non-intelligent entity can become intelligent
Some entities have the ability to change, add, or remove goals
These changes, additions, deletions are likely governed by other goals. (Perhaps I am confusing goals with wants or desires? Or merely causation itself?)
The “original” goal could be deleted without making an entity unintelligent. The pencil could pick a different spot on the ground but this would not cause you to doubt its intelligence.
Please note that I am not trying to disagree (or agree) with you. I am just talking because I think the subject is interesting and I haven’t really given it much thought. I am certainly no authority on the subject. If I am obviously wrong somewhere, please let me know.