You're quite right that arguing whether computer intelligence will be like human intelligence is not the point, but how we can make computer intelligence useful. The ways you've been pointing out for how computers can mine the 'Rosetta stone' type archives that people of all kinds put together, are wonderful. It potentially offers useful extracts from different points of view of the same things.
It seem to me to represent computers being used to refer to ideas, but it does something possibly more useful in my reckoning. It offers another way to attack the wall of subjectivity, buy exposing people to independent constructs relating to the same things, adding perspective to information. Lack of perspective is one of the great barriers to meaningful thought and any help on the would be great. I don't expect machines with 'separate intelligence' except by growing them in the usual way, but new formats for information serving as 'extensions of intelligence' that enable a new levels of thought, that may well be possible! Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com > Phil Henshaw wrote: > > Are you saying that the 'contextualize' > > function extracts the meanings of the words though, and looks for > > other associations with those meanings, or does it just > reflect things > > like frequency and proximity of occurrence. > > > The purpose of the contextualize function in that ad hoc > example is to > get the meaning of a word based on the situation in which it > is used. > In the example it was a simple lookup, but there's no reason > it couldn't > do backtracking, on-the-fly simulations/forecasts, or whatever. > Modeling the context is, worst case, itself a hard problem. > But then I > think people frequently misunderstand one another too, and there is > always the option of the computer asking for clarification. > > I'm a little concerned we're going to get bogged down in a > round-and-round discussion about whether artificial intelligence is > possible and whether meaning is something specific to human > brains. > My answer to those questions are yes and no, respectively. Digital > computation can simulate physical processes as needed (e.g. of brain > neurochemistry) and where digital simulation isn't efficient enough, > there's always the possibility of measuring analog circuits, or even > quantum ones. I personally expect pure logic will be the > best tool for > realizing computer intelligence. > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
