Re: The skill of learning skills.

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 19:42:14 GMT, Risujin <risujin@xxxxxxxxxxx> in
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>Lester Zick wrote:
>>>>Okay. But how is your possible measure of intelligence superior to
>>>>"we'll know it when we see it"? All the different schools of thought
>>>>seem to have their own measure of what they're looking for in smarts.
>>>
>>>The "we'll know it when we see it" definition is as bad as it gets. You
>>>cannot derive anything from such a definition except a yes/no answer
>>>with no reasoning.
>>
>> Well I agree except your resolution of the paradox seems to be "we'll
>> know it when it gets skillful". Traveler seems to think "we'll know it
>> when it gets timing". Glen's seems to be "we'll know it when it gets
>> trainable".Dan's appears to be "we'll know it when it's neruological".
>> Darwin's was "we'll know it when it gets evolutionary". These all take
>> the resolution of the paradox a step further without solving the
>> paradox or even being able to say exactly what the paradox is. Besides
>> there are already systems with timing, trainability neurology, evolve,
>> and are skillful without evidence of intelligence.
>
>Everyone has their own ideas for what an intelligence is. We need to
>pick the definitions that seem reasonable and strive to create something
>which fits the description.

This seems to be pretty much exactly what everyone has been doing
which hasn't led to anything more than robotics. Perhaps we should
first stop to ask ourselves what the paradox of intelligence is and
solve that problem before simply defining it one way or another.

>>>My proposed measure is not unique. It may not be the best around either,
>>>I'm not claiming it is. It does have some predictive power though. I
>>>noted some interesting consequences after the definition. It is also
>>>more concrete than many other definitions. I was hoping we could tighten
>>>it up further, or come up with something else that is concrete.
>>
>> The problem here is how to tighten it up in the direction of
>> intelligence. We could combine all the factors cited above and
>> still not know what intelligence is.
>
>On the contrary we would have created a definition for what we're
>looking for. Instead of searching for that warm and fuzzy "aha!" feeling
>we'd have a concrete means of judging our progress. The better our
>definition the better we can judge our progress. That is what I mean by
>tightening.

Except plenty of people have already come up with definitions of what
they're looking for which provide a concrete means of judging progress
without creating intelligence. I thought it's what you're complaining
about. Maybe you should ask yourself whether intelligence is concrete
to begin with?

>No amount of defining will give us the answer outright but you shouldn't
>expect it to.

Of course I don't expect it to. I thought you expected it to. If you
don't expect intelligence to fall out of what you propose then it
falls under the heading robotics not artificial intelligence.

>> I thought you were against "we'll know it when we see it" approaches
>> to intelligence. We don't resolve that problem by replacing the term
>> "see" with "timing" "trainability" "neurology" "evolve" or "skillful".
>> The problem is the "we'll know it when it . . ." part of the equation
>> and not the ". . . see, train,, skillful, etc." part. Those terms are
>> just descriptive references to various aspect of intelligence.
>
>Actually there is an important difference. We repleace "we know it when
>..." with "the more ... the more intelligent". Do you see the
>distinction?

What I see is a terminological expansion instead of a scientific
reduction. Calling something intelligent doesn't make it intelligence.

You complain that people are content with the following:

We'll know it when we see it - instead of

We'll know it when we see it skillful - or

" " " " " " " timed - or

" " " " " " " trained - or

" " " " " " " neural - or

" " " " " " " evolve

or any of a thousand other descriptive analogies for intelligence.
All you're really doing is replacing one paradox - intelligence -
which you can't solve with another - skill, training, etc. - which
you think you can solve but ultimately will not solve the problem
of intelligence itself. And my question to you is how you expect to
"see" the "it" - intelligence - in whatever descriptive analogy you
substitute especially if the "it" can't be seen in the first place.

> Its the difference between a compass that points at the
>north pole and a light that turns on when youre there.

Then my question here is how do you know one is more intelligent
than the other and "the more - a light turns on when you're there -
the more intelligent"?

~v~~

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Liars Paradox - resolution
    ... given the conditions that must obtain if we want to assert 'always'. ... just normally pointless to do so - unless dealing with the liars ... paradox, ... one key thing I have learned is that any resolution probably ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Scale a paradox form
    ... But how to use opal to resize the Paradox outer shell (the Paradox windows ... Windows desktop, choose Properties). ... of the resolution. ... Note how much space on the screen the dialog occupies - it occupies ...
    (comp.databases.paradox)
  • Re: is this a good proof of quantum mechanics?
    ... >> The resolution to Zeno's paradox doesn't require quantum mechanics. ... > Zeno's paradox is one and the same as the Problem of Time, ... to first travel halfway across the eye surface...it must ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Reply to Daryl McCullough on Liar paradox
    ... No sentence that has the same sequence of characters as sentence ... It's not a resolution to the Liar paradox, ... Your "resolution" makes such inferences impossible. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: beginner thought experiments
    ... that is a well known case of twin paradox. ... not good at Math or Physics but I am good at applying simple logic. ... I cannot explain the BS nature in the Lorentz Transform. ... been searching for years to find the resolution to the Twin's Paradox ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)