On 13 Feb 2013, at 23:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 5:11:32 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King
wrote:
On 2/13/2013 2:58 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2013 8:35 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Wouldn�t Simulated Intelligence be a more appropriate term than
Artificial Intelligence?
Thinking of it objectively, if we have a program which can model a
hurricane, we would call that hurricane a simulation, not an
�artificial hurricane�. If we modeled any physical substance,
force, or field, we would similarly say that we had simulated
hydrogen or gravity or electromagnetism, not that we had created
artificial hydrogen, gravity, etc.
No, because the idea of an AI is that it can control a robot or
other machine which interacts with the real world, whereas a
simulate AI or hurricane acts within a simulated world.
��� What difference that makes a difference does that make in
the grand scheme of things? The point is that we cannot 'prove' that
we are not in a gigantic simulation. Yeah, we cannot prove a
negative, but we can extract a lot of valuable insights and maybe
some predictions from the assumption that 'reality = best possible
simulation".
I just realized how to translate that into my view: "Reality =
making the most sense possible." Same thing really. That's why I
talk about multisense Realism, with Realism being the quality of
maximum unfiltered sense. Since sense is subtractive, the more
senses you have overlapping and diverging, the less there is that
you are missing. Reality = nothing is missing (i.e. only possible at
the Absolute level), Realism = you can't tell that anything is
missing from your perceptual capacity/inertial frame/simulation.
I don't like the word simulation per se, because I think that
anything the idea of a Matrix universe does for us would be negated
by the idea that the simulation eventually has to run on something
which is not a simulation, otherwise the word has no meaning. Either
way, the notion of simulation doesn't make any of the big questions
more answerable, even if it is locally true for us.
Emulation and simulation are arithmetical notion. And with comp, even
"physical emulation", well, it is no more entirely arithmetical, but
it is still explained entirely in arithmetical terms (an infinity of
them).
Bruno
Craig
By calling it artificial, we also emphasize a kind of obsolete
notion of natural vs man-made as categories of origin.
Why is the distinction between the natural intelligence of a child
and the artificial intelligence of a Mars rover obsolete?� The
latter is one we create by art, the other is created by nature.
If we used simulated instead, the measure of intelligence would be
framed more modestly as the degree to which a system meets our
expectations (or what we think or assume are our expectations).
Rather than assuming a universal index of intelligent qualities
which is independent from our own human qualities,
But if we measure intelligence strictly relative to human
intelligence we will be saying that visual pattern recognition is
intelligence but solving Navier-Stokes equations is not.� This is
the anthropocentrism that continually demotes whatever computers
can do as "not really intelligent" even when it was regarded a the
apothesis of intelligence *before* computers could� do it.
we could evaluate the success of a particular Turing emulation
purely on its merits as a convincing reflection of intelligence
But there is no one-dimensional measure of intelligence - it's just
competence in many domains.
rather than presuming to have replicated an organic conscious
experience mechanically.
I don't think that's a presumption.� It's an inference from the
incoherence of the idea of a philosophical zombie.
The cost of losing the promise of imminently mastering awareness
would, I think, be outweighed by the gain of a more scientifically
circumspect approach. Putting the Promethean dream on hold, we
could guard against the shadow of its confirmation bias. My
concern is that without such a precaution, the promise of machine
intelligence as a stage 1 simulacrum (a faithful copy of an
original, in Baudrillard�s terms), will be diluted to a stage 3
simulacrum (a copy that masks the absence of a profound reality,
where the simulacrum pretends to be a faithful copy.) --�
The assumption that there is a 'profound reality' is what Stathis
showed to be 'magic'.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
�
�
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
