Re: How Robots Will Steal Your Job

[Eray Ozkural exa]

Intelligence has nothing to do with consciousness or self-awareness.
Although this thread is cross-posted, I am replying from
"comp.robotics.misc" and my reply is based on the context of that forum.

What a confident assertion.

I must disagree. Higher order intelligence might necessarily give rise
to consciousness which includes self-awareness function.

To treat consciousness as a "useless add-on" to intelligence reminds
me of Cartesian dualism if nothing else.

Then, you would believe that Chalmers's philosophical zombies may
exist. I would disagree with that! Human consciousness is not separate
from intelligence! It's functionally another form of intelligence, a
collection of higher cognitive functions which we label
consciousness...

Regards,

 

[Alan Balmer]

Are you?

Certainly not, which is why I wouldn't make the claim that you made.

 

[Alan Balmer]

I have pictures on my website at http://mindprod.com/iraq.html
of kids who didn't die, just maimed. I keep asking, how could anyone
think doing this would make the USA more secure? Surely all it could
do it make a relative swear revenge down the generations.

I assume those are right next to the world trade center pictures and
the pictures of the mass graves in Iraq?

 

[Patrick Mulligan]

I guess I picked this email because it touched upon issues that I was
thinking about....language.

It seems to me that there is for most a direct conduit between language and
intelligence. On that point lets look at the history of intelligence. Take
for example the enlightenment and the romantic era. Here we saw the basis
for all our bases of thought now. Eg Descartes..I think therefore I am ( the
duality of self), Kant and the duality of consciousness ( now used in human
rights and international relations discourse...discussing the categorical
imperative- meaning even if we do wrong, there is a universal right in all
of us and we choose to stray from waht we believe is right). And then we
have romantic influences such as Rousseau who began the whol;e
nature/nurture debate.

These foundations are obviously very complex. What has always perplexed me
is the very important question of whether abstract concepts and
philosophising is solely in the domain of human thought. I often think of
artificial intelligance, and think that we pass on abstract
concepts(mathematical equations and analysis) to computers- Is that not
language?


I guess my question is this- Are emotions a prerequisite to intelligence? OR
is intelligance a pure objective science?
And finally- If animals have intelligence- Why don't they fight back to what
we are doing to the planet?
Is their intelligance created merely in communities? Perhaps if they are
mammals(gregarious)- then intelligance is created on a smaller scale?

The discussion is about the _definition_ of intelligence!
seem

to

Define intelligence?
Most people of this planet CANNOT post here!

 

[Programmer Dude]

It's called anthropocentric, by the way...

Yes. People have been using "humanocentric" in this thread (as
you can see from the quote), so I just went with the flow.

Nobody has seemed to ask himself this pivotal question:

If humans are intelligent, and dogs are not, then there must be
a biological difference in the brain!

And there is. Not in the substance, but in the structure.

Is there, or are human and dog brains made of the same stuff?
It seems they are. So a logical conclusion must be that they
have the same capacity, only humans have developed those much
stronger.

Most houses are built from the same basic materials. Are all
houses basically equal? Imagine a theatre and a small house
both built from bricks, wood, steel and glass. Are they the
same in their purpose and capacity? Or does the *structure*
of how those materials are put together matter (and matter a
great deal).

As we believe mind comes largely from the *structure* of the
brain, it is that structure that matters, not the substance.

If humans are 'intelligent' and dogs are not, it means they must
have a fundamentally different brain, which they don't!

Apply that logic to, say, the Z80 and the latest from Intel.
Both made from silicon.... are they equal??

Structure is pretty important! (-:

 

[Programmer Dude]

How many words of Chinese have you decoded? Perhaps 3 or 4.
Does that reflect on Chinese or you?

The difference that strikes me is that, if I spent a year with a
Chinese person, at the end of that year we would very likely be
communicating pretty well. We'd have picked up much from each
others' languages and would have established a *high* degree of
communication bandwidth and accuracy (in other words, we would
be able to "say" a lot and get it right).

I've lived with my dog for nine years, and the level of
communication isn't anywhere near as high. We've actively
studies dolphins and whales much longer than that, and the
communication bandwidth and accuracy just isn't there.

Exactly what that means, however, may be a different question.

 

[Programmer Dude]

You're making a major error here, by thinking as a human.

I don't believe so. What's "human" about wanting not to die?
What's "human" about math? (A notable feature of math is that
is as close to a universal language as possible (so long as you
remain in a universe with consistant laws). Once you have defined
the concept of unity ("one") and the concepts of math operators
and equality, "1+1=2" everywhere in the universe.)

Do we consider whales to have human intelligence? No.

As you say. Of course not.

Does our definition of intelligence imply that intelligence
is de facto human?

Mine doesn't. I've tried, in this thread (which I thought had
died months ago!), I've been trying to discuss those features of
intelligence I believe are universal.

For I do believe such exist. Look back on the thread if you're
interested.

I personally think that intelligence has a broader definition
than just our human intelligence.

I agree absolutely.

 

[Zagan]

"Zagan" <[email protected]> wrote in message

What a confident assertion.

I must disagree. Higher order intelligence might necessarily give rise
to consciousness which includes self-awareness function.

[Zagan]
I was not speaking of "higher order intelligence." I was speaking of the
intelligence we are able to program into our robots, and limited my context
to that of "comp.robotics.misc."

I do expect that sometime in the future, our computers/machines will achieve
consciousness and self-awareness. A discussion of this would be appropriate
for "comp.ai.philosophy," but my comments referred to "current" technology.

One could say that a sensor providing data to a robot is a form of
consciousness, but I prefer to avoid the term since it is often mistaken for
self-awareness. I refer to this as "intelligence" since input data must be
analyzed and an action taken depending on the input.

I stand by my definition of intelligence as the ability to receive input and
make decisions based on that input, (e.g., stimulus/response).

Current robots and computer programs do this all the time, but that does not
imply the robot or program is "self-aware." Intelligence does not imply
consciousness, and consciousness does not imply self-awareness.

You are correct within the context which you used to reply, but incorrect
within the context of the post I made.

To treat consciousness as a "useless add-on" to intelligence reminds
me of Cartesian dualism if nothing else.

[Zagan]
I don't remember commenting on this issue.

Then, you would believe that Chalmers's philosophical zombies may
exist. I would disagree with that! Human consciousness is not separate
from intelligence! It's functionally another form of intelligence, a
collection of higher cognitive functions which we label
consciousness...

Regards,

[Zagan]
Eray, I agree with your words in general. A biological being that has
evolved to the point of possessing consciousness and self-awareness, will
certainly have intelligence. My point is simply that a machine can respond
in an intelligent manner to input, and consciousness or self-awareness is
not required. Remember, we are talking about machines, not biological
entities.

Best Regards,

// Jim

 

[Robert J. Kolker]

Surely there's a middle ground between pacifism and warmongering?

When the Minutemen were waiting for the British Regulars to march up
Menotomy Road (now Massachussetts Avenue) on the way to Concord Capt
John Parker issued this order:

"Stand your ground," Parker ordered. "Don't fire unless fired upon. But,
if they want to have a war, let it begin here."

And that is how he-men with big brass gongs won my independence and yours.

Bob Kolker

 

[Adam Jenkins]

When the Minutemen were waiting for the British Regulars to march up
Menotomy Road (now Massachussetts Avenue) on the way to Concord Capt
John Parker issued this order:

"Stand your ground," Parker ordered. "Don't fire unless fired upon. But,
if they want to have a war, let it begin here."

And that is how he-men with big brass gongs won my independence and yours.

And how does that apply here? What evidence is there that the Iraqi
government "fired upon" us, or were planning to? Sure, they were an
oppressive government, but there are lots of oppressive governments that
the US doesn't attack, and even supports. The US decision to attack
Iraq seems to have more to do with protecting financial interests in the
Middle East, and the administration has cynically tried to link the
Iraqi government with the 9/11 attack to justify what it has been
wanting to do for years. That's why a lot of people consider it war
mongering.

Anyway, the post Borgwardt was responding to was just a classic straw
man argument. Someone criticizes US foreign policy in Iraq, and he
responds by saying pacifism isn't practical. Is the implication that
only a pacifist would disagree with the Bush administration's foreign
policy? Or is it possible that there is a lot of middle ground between
Bush's foreign policy and pacifism?

 

[Roedy Green]

We've actively
studies dolphins and whales much longer than that, and the
communication bandwidth and accuracy just isn't there.

One experiment you may not be aware of goes like this.

You put two dolphins in separate ponds and connect them by a
hydrophone. You tell dolphin A some "secret" and then test to see if
dolphin B knows it. You can control the bandwidth of the hydrophone
link. If you block out the high frequency sounds, they lose the
ability to communicate.

Even if you can't decode the communication, you can prove that somehow
some information must have been sent -- therefore dolphins must have
a way of expressing it.

But what is perhaps even stranger is the terseness of binary secret
sharing. Researchers could detect no difference in the word for "yes"
from the word for "no". Yet obviously somehow the information was
being communicated.

Humans typically try to treat dolphins like dogs. If they obey
commands then they are considered intelligent. Try that same criteria
on prisoners in isolation cells, which is effectively what dolphins
are.

 

[Roedy Green]

It seems to me that there is for most a direct conduit between language and
intelligence.

The counter example here is the orangutan which spends much of its
life in solitary. Its intelligence is mainly used to compute routes
to food. It solves some very complex puzzles in maximizing calories
for effort.

 

[royls]

And just how did you form that conclusion? Are you a practicing
telepath?

No, and neither are those who presume those who are unable to decide
whether to stay or go automatically want to stay. That is the point.
I also have personal experience of people with no desire to stay who
have no means to go.

-- Roy L

 

[Alan Balmer]

No, and neither are those who presume those who are unable to decide
whether to stay or go automatically want to stay. That is the point.

So, you think the default should be euthanasia when a person is unable
to communicate? That's a decision that cannot be undone. My own
presumption would be that a person who does not want to be kept alive
would make that known when they can still communicate.

I also have personal experience of people with no desire to stay who
have no means to go.

And I have personal experience of a person who was thought by
relatives (and at least one physician) to be hopeless, until she
recovered and confronted them with the things they had been saying at
her "deathbed." She lived another eight years, and enjoyed all eight,
though there were some relatives she no longer spoke to ;-)

 

[George W. Cherry]

Certainly not, which is why I wouldn't make the claim that you made.

Alan, if you had read my message accurately you'd
note that I didn't make the statement to which you
objected. Below is the whole text. It's not long.

And just how did you form that conclusion? Are you a practicing
telepath?

Are you? As far as I know, no one is. So advanced
directives and living wills must fill the gap. I wonder,
can the soldiers in Iraq write advanced directives, or
does the US Department of Defense rule that out.

George

 

[George W. Cherry]

The discussion is about the _definition_ of intelligence!
seem

Grrrrr. Woof, woof. Grrrr.

Rover

Define intelligence?
Most people of this planet CANNOT post here!

 

[Gerry Quinn]

Surely there's a middle ground between pacifism and warmongering?

I guess so, but it's hardly germane to the original claims.

- Gerry Quinn

 

[Gerry Quinn]

Anyway, the post Borgwardt was responding to was just a classic straw
man argument. Someone criticizes US foreign policy in Iraq, and he
responds by saying pacifism isn't practical. Is the implication that
only a pacifist would disagree with the Bush administration's foreign
policy? Or is it possible that there is a lot of middle ground between
Bush's foreign policy and pacifism?

The original post claimed that US security could not be enhanced by a
war in which children are maimed, and that everyone except the Bush
administration realised this. The purpose of my challenging this was to
point out that this is an emotive claim which any reasoned analysis of
history shows to be false.

I simply point out that in all wars children are maimed, and in the
absence of war children are also maimed. Prior to the war, there were
websites showing pictures of maimed Iraqi children, supposedly injured
by UN sanctions, for which the US was blamed. Had the war not occurred,
these sites would presumably have continued as before, until such time
as Saddam regenerated sufficiently to carry out a new atrocity. At this
time the websites would be altered to show children maimed in this
incident, and no doubt on many of these sites the US, and specifically
the Bush administration, would once again be 'shown' to be ultimately
responsible.

Certainly the US had a choice with regard to whether to invade Iraq or
leave it to fester. Certainly the choice taken was not the one a
pacifist would applaud. Certainly one can debate whether it was correct
by comparing it with realistic alternative futures and attempting to
decide which outcome would be better according to one's favoured
philosophy of politics. One cannot, however, assert that it is
obviously wrong simply on the basis that a number of children were
maimed during the conflict, unless the philosophy favoured is one of
total pacifism.

- Gerry Quinn

 

[Gerry Quinn]

One experiment you may not be aware of goes like this.

You put two dolphins in separate ponds and connect them by a
hydrophone. You tell dolphin A some "secret" and then test to see if
dolphin B knows it. You can control the bandwidth of the hydrophone
link. If you block out the high frequency sounds, they lose the
ability to communicate.

Even if you can't decode the communication, you can prove that somehow
some information must have been sent -- therefore dolphins must have
a way of expressing it.

Have you a link to a description of successful experiment of this type.

But what is perhaps even stranger is the terseness of binary secret
sharing. Researchers could detect no difference in the word for "yes"
from the word for "no". Yet obviously somehow the information was
being communicated.

The opposite of terseness, surely?

Humans typically try to treat dolphins like dogs. If they obey
commands then they are considered intelligent. Try that same criteria
on prisoners in isolation cells, which is effectively what dolphins
are.

The nature of the 'secret' also says something about the communication.
Candidly, embedding a yes-no signal (in effect, a single bit) in a large
burst of data is not that impressive to me.

- Gerry Quinn

 

[Alan Balmer]

Alan, if you had read my message accurately you'd
note that I didn't make the statement to which you
objected. Below is the whole text. It's not long.

I think if you read carefully, you'll find that I was replying to
royls.