Re: AUI - Artificial Unintelligence

On 21 Mar 2006 14:36:48 -0800, "JGCASEY" <jgkjcasey@xxxxxxxxxxxx> in
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:


Lester Zick wrote:
...
Well the problem arises when people draft definitions for intelligence
which aren't universally exhaustive and mechanically demonstrable.


I am happy with my working concept of intelligence.

Well we're all happy with our working concepts of intelligence. We're
just not happy with others' working concepts of intelligence. So maybe
they'll be happier with other's working concepts of untelligence.

I am not a mathematician so I don't understand
'computable numbers" with respect to AI but I
read that Turing took a strong line that computers
would be able to perform anything that people do
in thinking. And I suspect he was able to understand
the implications of computable numbers and the mind.

TvN mechanics only works on computable numbers. It doesn't really
matter what Turing thought. It only matters what he was able to prove
and that doesn't include the mind and mental effects are computable
numbers. Nor does Searle's apparent assumption that there can be
correct translational dictionaries for unsubsumed languages despite
what he seems to have suggested on the topic. No doubt both Turing and
Searle were satisfied with their working concepts of intelligence too.

~v~~

.