Definition is intelligence.
Kind Regards,
Bruce LaDuke
Managing Director
Instant Innovation, LLC
Indianapolis, IN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.hyperadvance.com
----Original Message Follows----
From: Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 14:26:33 -0500
Richard, I long ago proposed a working definition of intelligence as
"Achieving complex goals in complex environments." I then went through a
bunch of trouble to precisely define all the component terms of that
definition; you can consult the Appendix to my 2006 book "The Hidden
Pattern".... Shane Legg and Marcus Hutter have proposed a related
definition of intelligence in a recent paper...
Anyone can propose a definition. The point of my objection is that a
definition has to have some way to be compared against reality.
Suppose I define intelligence to be:
"A funtion that maps goals G and world states W onto action states A, where
G, W and A are any mathematical entities whatsoever."
That would make any function that maps X [cross] Y into Z an
"intelligence".
Such a definition would be pointless. The question is *why* would it be
pointless? What criteria are applied, in order to determine whether the
definition has something to the thing that in everyday life we call
intelligence.
The difficulty in comparing my definition against reality is that my
definition defines intelligence relative to a "complexity" measure.
For this reason, it is fundamentally a subjective definition of
intelligence, except in the unrealistic case where "degree of complexity
tends to infinity" (in which case all "reasonably general" complexity
measures become equivalent, due to bisimulation of Turing machines).
To qualitatively compare my definition to the "everyday life" definition of
intelligence, we can check its consistency with our everyday life definition
of "complexity." Informally, at least, my definition seems to check out to
me: intelligence according to an IQ test does seem to have something to do
with the ability to achieve complex goals; and, the reason we think IQ tests
mean anything is that we think the ability to achieve complex goals in the
test-context will correlate with the ability to achieve complex goals in
various more complex environments (contexts).
Anyway, if I accept for instance **Richard Loosemore** as a measurer of the
complexity of environments and goals, then relative to
Richard-as-a-complexity-measure, I can assess the intelligence of various
entities, using my definition....
In practice, in building a system like Novamente, I'm relying on modern
human culture's "consensus complexity measure" and trying to make a system
that, according to this measure, can achieve a diverse variety of complex
goals in complex situations...
P.S. Quick sanity check: you know the last comment in the quote you gave
(about loking in the dictionary) was Matt's, not mine, right?
Yes...
Ben
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=11983
_________________________________________________________________
Play Flexicon: the crossword game that feeds your brain. PLAY now for FREE.
http://zone.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmtagline
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=11983
