On Saturday, June 14, 2014 11:43:47 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, June 13, 2014 5:54:01 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Pierz <pie...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > The whole thing really just illustrates a fundamental problem with our >>> current conception of AI -at least as it manifests in such 'tests'. >>> >> >> If there is a fundamental problem with determining the level of >> intelligence in something the problem is not restricted to computers, it's >> just as severe in the intelligence of our fellow humans. >> > > For something like this to be true the means have to be equal too. A lot > is understood about intelligence in humans because we can do things like > make a list of life outcomes that are most strongly tied in with > intelligence, on the one hand. And on the other make tests that feature > generic activities say, involving language or spatial reasoning or > whatever. Then we can correlate. Which creates problems because humans can > learn skills by repetition and we have to be able to say whether these > correlations are about learning skills or intelligence. But this kind of > thing has been going on now for over a century there are things like 'g > factor'. > > It doesn't explain everything...but it's good hard science. I does tend to > be exaggerated in terms of how much a person can be defined by I.Q. This is > particularly bad in the high IQ community as you'd expect. At the other end > it's been the target of large scale campaigns to discredit it....because it > makes the world a more complicated place where there are consequences and > constraints on what we can do just by wishing it so...that people don't > want to hear. > > So there it is. We know a about intelligence in humans. Nothing like we > need to know. But a lot more than a lot of people are willing to say > anymore, who know that. Not sure where you are on that....from your > consciousness vs intelligence positions it appears you may be well informed > in that respect. On the other hand you appear to have had a career in a > field where I.Q. would have been at a premium so you've probably spent your > life discerning for I.Q. so there may be a little rationalizing going on > somewhere. >
Sorry I said " it appears you may be well informed in that respect" but meant to say it appeared you MAY NOT be well informed on that respect. Purely because you've said the hard problem is intelligence and not consciousness. When we've got a hard science of intelligence in humans anyway, but barely a brainfart thrown against the wall for consciousness thus far -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
