Re: Wrong Procedure

"Dave Ulmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Rick Craik" <rick@@icebergideas..com> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[snip]

> > Again, I think this statement on AI springs up from the "intelligent
> > human" point of view: the advancement of human knowledge and
> > how we share it with machines. Embracing the fact that intelligence
> > is simply an opinion is rich when you consider the AI as a stand
> > alone system, having no intelligent human interfacing.
> > For examples; IQ tests, and the Turing Test give us measurable
> > opinions on what is intelligent, without regard to how intelligence
> > works, just our opinion on the effectiveness of the intelligence at
> > work.
>
> There is no way to separate the human from machine intelligence
> unless you send the machine into deep space with no communication
> link. Then how would you know if it were more intelligent than a rock?

In Star Trek: The Movie, Captain Kirk meets a machine sent into deep
space (to acquire knowledge) with no communication links and finds
it was more intelligent than a rock.

> As for IQ and Turing tests, those too can not be separated from the
> humans that create and interpret the tests. Take away the humans and
> you have no intelligence. Then there is of course the speed of so
> called intelligence, how long does it take to take a test? Give and IQ
> test to anyone for just one second and they will look quite stupid.
>

Quite so. But if intelligence is considered as an ability, and intelligent
is considered as an opinion on the effectiveness of the ability, then it
fits with common usage as defined in a dictionary where intelligence
is a noun, and intelligent is an adjective. You can judge the
effectiveness of intelligence by closing your eyes and saying it is not
there.

In my humble opinion, the only way to normally decease knowledge
in a normal intelligence is to change the environment (or the tests)
rendering the intelligence as less effective (make it look quite stupid).
This applies to generally to intelligence, and to the domain of
intelligence abilities that are the "understanding engines" of the
"intelligent systems".

When you say "knowledge directs understanding engines", does
knowledge act like a road sign? Does the road sign direct
("cause") us to turn right, for example? How about then I label
your able "understanding engines" with the synonymous term
intelligence?

So changing the conventions of the road sign (language, symbols)
would "cause" the system to be lost ("effect"); therefore,
the "understanding engine" becomes ineffective. This would be
similar how books are said to contain knowledge, in that they direct
the reader to understand the subject (procedures)?

[snip]

Regards,
Rick