Register to reply

What is intelligence

by binbots
Tags: intelligence
Share this thread:
Mar18-10, 07:05 PM
PF Gold
apeiron's Avatar
P: 2,432
Quote Quote by Kajahtava View Post
I shall be bolder and claim that I don't know what they are and that they don't exist, and that human beings in fact do not experience consciousness, they just claim they do, including myself, counter intuitive I suppose.
Well, that trumps Descartes I guess.

Quote Quote by Kajahtava View Post
the test is politically laden and invented primarily around human beings, first they decided upon a thing that human beings share, then they tried to see if other animals also did. No one would make such a a test and observe from it that humans fail it and thus conclude that humans lack sentience, but dogs have it aplenty.
I think what the researchers were trying to show, and did indeed show, was that there was a gradation in this regard from animals to humans.

Quote Quote by Kajahtava View Post
Also, Wikipedia makes no mention of the dot, and as unreliable you may find wikipedia, I find it more reliable than most sites, and certainly than a random user on a forum if I may be so bold to say so.
I agree. Wiki is reliable. See and read the second paragraph.

Gordon Gallup built on these observations by devising a test that attempts to gauge self-awareness by determining whether an animal can recognize its own reflection in a mirror as an image of itself. This is accomplished by surreptitiously marking the animal with two odourless dye spots. The test spot is on a part of the animal that would be visible in front of a mirror, while the control spot is in an accessible but hidden part of the animal's body. Scientists observe if the animal reacts in a manner consistent with it being aware that the test dye is located on its own body while ignoring the control dye. Such behaviour might include turning and adjusting of the body in order to better view the marking in the mirror, or poking at the marking on its own body with a limb while viewing the mirror.
Mar18-10, 08:24 PM
P: 92
Quote Quote by apeiron View Post
Well, that trumps Descartes I guess.
Je dis que je pense donc je dis que je suis.

Of course, that I think suffices as proof for me that I think, but that I think is not a given, it is a na´ve assumption. I find the hypothesis that all humans have no more or less feeling than a random rock and just process signals by the laws of physics and have evolved to become a sophisticated and adaptive swarm-intelligence based computer to be a lot simpler. With respect to the lethal weapon of Mr. Ockam, it explains all the observed data, that humans claim they are self-aware can easily be attributed to that doing so of course enhances their chances of survival. And it removes the complicated and vague issues like 'where does consciousness come from?', 'do other people have a mind?', 'what is consciousness?', by just not making the axiom that human beings are conscious, which is different than making the axiom that they are not, just leaving it out of the whole schlump, we can answer all quaestions, and needn't raise any new ones.

I think what the researchers were trying to show, and did indeed show, was that there was a gradation in this regard from animals to humans.
Sure, but we can show a gradation in many things, we can probably show that humans have one of the best senses of balance on the planet. However, does that bring us to any meaningful data on 'self awareness'?

I agree. Wiki is reliable.
Ahh, good, I was afraid the wiki card would be pulled. Wiki system isn't perfect, but it's a hell more reliable than for instance a newspaper or just a random site on the web made by one person with Ph.D. behind his or her name. A million people that can edit also means that a million people can check for errors, and the sourcing policy is quite okay.

See and read the second paragraph.
Indeed, I just read it, and I agree that the test is flawed in its usual context. We can us it to some extend to see what animals realize visually that another animal copies their every move, but that's about it. It's not really self awareness, and for all we know it just tests egocentricity, ahaha.

Also, I find 'self awareness' far too vague to be tested. If I make a computer program that prints "I know that I am a computer program and that I my only capability is informing you of what I am." then surely I have just programmed a very simple intelligence that does some computation and accurately is able to describe what it is, is it then self-aware?

Register to reply

Related Discussions
Intelligence Came First Cosmology 3
Can Artificial Intelligence ever reach Human Intelligence? General Discussion 274
Intelligence General Discussion 26
What is intelligence? General Discussion 10
Artificial Intelligence vs Human Intelligence General Discussion 38