Is Artificial Intelligence Truly Artificial?

[Mentat]

As many of you know, I object to the reference of all intelligence, other than that of organic beings, as being "artificial". That is the point of this thread. Here are the definitions of the key-words, "intelligence" and "artifical":

Merriam-Webster definition of "intelligence"
Main Entry: in·tel·li·gence
Pronunciation: in-'te-l&-j&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin intelligentia, from intelligent-, intelligens intelligent
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)...

5 : the ability to perform computer functions

Webster's definition of "artificial"

2. Feigned, fictitious; not genuine or natural; as artificial tears.

I have not included all definitions of "artificial" because I only object to the application of this (the quoted) one.

It seems as though many (maybe most) people believe that the intelligence of a man-made computer is "artificial", or not genuine. I disagree. I think that a man-made computer can ("can" is a key-word, as my argument has nothing to do with the current limits of technology) posses all of the qualities listed in the above definition of "intelligence", and that there is nothing ingenuine about it.

What is your opinion (please give the reason for choosing as you do)?

 

[heusdens]

Anything that is man-made, wether this is a car or a computer, is artificial.

 

[FZ+]

It depends on the meaning of artificial you use. If you imply that non-organic intelligent must inherently be different from organic ones, even inferior, I disagree. But it's pretty clear that computerised AIs as we now construct them are "man made" and hence in that way artificial. It may be different for the products of evolutionary programming though...

Is there a word for "self made"?

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Originally posted by heusdens
Anything that is man-made, wether this is a car or a computer, is artificial.

\

I agree with heusdens.

Mentat, I believe you are arguing on behalf of intellegence "itself"?
So, if I may interpose, "can" (as you said is the key word on your arguement) is verb that requires a will, that is, a certain extent of freewill in, if not all (which I doubt), some cases. So how can a computer have free will? Free will is not only a neurological senstion, but is more of a psychological sensation which, either way, involves chemical reactions. I honestly don't how a computer "can". I know "can" can be used as "Can the computer occupy an '03 program?", but my argument of "can" is based on the context of "Can the compter expand its hard drive?" or something of that sort; IOW, "can" in the context of a will. Before I can establish a definte conviction on this point, I should like Mentat to explain the way he is using "can" in his argument.

 

[newton1]

i support that the computer is artificial
becuase the computer is create by a human
if our world no human being ...
than no computer at all

 

[TENYEARS]

Ok, this ones for alexander. An organic entity is a chemical reaction which functions according to it's functions which have been built over time via natural selection. These functions allow awareness via sensory input. There is nothing abstract about it. These inputs are stored and processed according to the needs of other functions. Thinking is done in accordance with the accomplishing of these functions according to highest order Mos Lowwww in a phisological frame of reference. No Carp here.

A computer accomplishs a second functions according to the limitations of it's hardware and preset functions. It's abilty to learn is programmed like us. Even if a program written to learn is written it can learn only to the limit of those predefined functions outward. It will not be able to reason new formulas which have not been preprogrammed with a higher order than has been programmed. A human being can only because the matrix for a human being is far more complex than any computer that can ever be built.

A computer may be able to perform limited sets(Chess) and actually outperform human beings as long as it plots deep enough to a degree, this is a limited set of logic performed outward.

Today you are all Zombies. And judging from your posts on both forums I witnessed that some of you like to play both ends against the middle when it is convienient.

This means human beings are "not concious" and should remove all references to this other than to establish a reframe of reference for a reboot of your human PC with electrical activity. When that activity stops you are dead - same as a computer. Sorry you are no better than ants here.

or

Your other option is the universe is conscious behind and throughout the entire infinite creation. These are your only two options. You have no other choices. Sorry you are not better than ants here.


Oh yea the fish thing is a is a subconsious representation of my unexpressed conciousness in the chemical machine or it is that and a little more. Who among you is brave? Who can stand up against reality itself? Do you think you can bear the weight of the question?

No settlers allowed - don't waste my time fish.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
Anything that is man-made, wether this is a car or a computer, is artificial.

Yes, in the sense of "artificial"'s meaning "man-made". However, the definition that I argue against, is that of not being genuine, or being "fake".

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by FZ+
It depends on the meaning of artificial you use. If you imply that non-organic intelligent must inherently be different from organic ones, even inferior, I disagree. But it's pretty clear that computerised AIs as we now construct them are "man made" and hence in that way artificial. It may be different for the products of evolutionary programming though...

Is there a word for "self made"?

Well, I tried to make sure (in my first post) that people knew that I was referring only to the defining of a "man-made" computer's intelligence as non-genuine. That's the kind of "artificial" I meant.

I know that they are man-made, and thus "artificial", but I don't think that their intelligence is - in anyway - less genuine than ours.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
\

I agree with heusdens.

Mentat, I believe you are arguing on behalf of intellegence "itself"?
So, if I may interpose, "can" (as you said is the key word on your arguement) is verb that requires a will, that is, a certain extent of freewill in, if not all (which I doubt), some cases. So how can a computer have free will? Free will is not only a neurological senstion, but is more of a psychological sensation which, either way, involves chemical reactions. I honestly don't how a computer "can". I know "can" can be used as "Can the computer occupy an '03 program?", but my argument of "can" is based on the context of "Can the compter expand its hard drive?" or something of that sort; IOW, "can" in the context of a will. Before I can establish a definte conviction on this point, I should like Mentat to explain the way he is using "can" in his argument.

Ok, that's a reasonable request. When I say "can" I don't imply free will, or even will, of any kind. When I say "can", I say it in the sense of having the potential to do something. A sub-atomic*can* decay - this doesn't mean that it has a "will" of any kind, it just has the potential to do so.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Newton1
i support that the computer is artificial
becuase the computer is create by a human
if our world no human being ...
than no computer at all

Yes, the computer is man-made. However, I am not talking about that definition of "artificial". I am talking about whether or not a computer's intelligence is genuine. One definition of "artificial" is "not genuine" - and many people apply this definition to man-made computers. Is this your view?

 

[chosenone]

I agree a computers intellegence is no less legitament than our own.if we are created by God and God Is doing everything,then one would have to accept that if a AI was brought online,God would be in charge of the AI's consciousness,the the AI or to us consciouns would be the same,because God gives us our consciouness,so what's the difference.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
Ok, this ones for alexander. An organic entity is a chemical reaction which functions according to it's functions which have been built over time via natural selection. These functions allow awareness via sensory input. There is nothing abstract about it. These inputs are stored and processed according to the needs of other functions. Thinking is done in accordance with the accomplishing of these functions according to highest order Mos Lowwww in a phisological frame of reference. No Carp here.

A computer accomplishs a second functions according to the limitations of it's hardware and preset functions. It's abilty to learn is programmed like us. Even if a program written to learn is written it can learn only to the limit of those predefined functions outward. It will not be able to reason new formulas which have not been preprogrammed with a higher order than has been programmed. A human being can only because the matrix for a human being is far more complex than any computer that can ever be built.

A computer may be able to perform limited sets(Chess) and actually outperform human beings as long as it plots deep enough to a degree, this is a limited set of logic performed outward.

Today you are all Zombies. And judging from your posts on both forums I witnessed that some of you like to play both ends against the middle when it is convienient.

This means human beings are "not concious" and should remove all references to this other than to establish a reframe of reference for a reboot of your human PC with electrical activity. When that activity stops you are dead - same as a computer. Sorry you are no better than ants here.

or

Your other option is the universe is conscious behind and throughout the entire infinite creation. These are your only two options. You have no other choices. Sorry you are not better than ants here.


Oh yea the fish thing is a is a subconsious representation of my unexpressed conciousness in the chemical machine or it is that and a little more. Who among you is brave? Who can stand up against reality itself? Do you think you can bear the weight of the question?

No settlers allowed - don't waste my time fish.

No one needs to stand up against reality. People are real, aren't they? If people are real, then they must stand up against themselves, in order to stand up against reality.

 

[newton1]

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, the computer is man-made. However, I am not talking about that definition of "artificial". I am talking about whether or not a computer's intelligence is genuine. One definition of "artificial" is "not genuine" - and many people apply this definition to man-made computers. Is this your view?

i don't think the computer is genuine
if in the future
the human can make a "life" for a computer
that time i think human is become the god already

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Newton1
i don't think the computer is genuine
if in the future
the human can make a "life" for a computer
that time i think human is become the god already

What makes you think that a man-made computer isn't alive? A human is alive, and we're computers.

 

[newton1]

Originally posted by Mentat
What makes you think that a man-made computer isn't alive? A human is alive, and we're computers.

and i ask back from you
what proof show human is a computer??
how to explain our mind? our feel? our creativeness?? and our lust?

 

[newton1]

i'm also don't believe that the human enable create a computer
which have a same intelligence with human...
just like a god...
can god create the other new god? or just enable to create the human

 

[FZ+]

what proof show human is a computer??
how to explain our mind? our feel? our creativeness?? and our lust?

Ask your local neurologist.
And ask yourself this: What happens when we are born, when we grow a brain? Isn't consciousness created then by man?

i'm also don't believe that the human enable create a computer
which have a same intelligence with human...

Why not? Is it a technical reason or a philosophical one?

can god create the other new god? or just enable to create the human

That's theology but why not? God is supposedly omnipotent.

 

[newton1]

Originally posted by FZ+
Ask your local neurologist.
And ask yourself this: What happens when we are born, when we grow a brain? Isn't consciousness created then by man?

this is call natura, a human being

Why not? Is it a technical reason or a philosophical one?

FZ+
u just always say why not
u haven give any scientific proof

That's theology but why not? God is supposedly omnipotent.

you omnipotent can create the other omnipotent...
it just like the god give u 3 wish
then u say the 1st wish is want another the other 3 wish
the second wish is want another 10 wish...
then this is no end...
u think it's possible
i don't think so

 

[newton1]

FZ+
u just always say why not
u never give any scientific proof
there is no any phonomenon show me that can happen
so i don't believe

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Newton:

and i ask back from you
what proof show human is a computer??
how to explain our mind? our feel? our creativeness?? and our lust?

We are essentially [basically] computers. Computers posess a basic anatomy of our own human brain. The mind and brain are two different references. The mind is supposedly unexplained (that is, it does not hhave an "absolute" definition) but Mentat will do an excellent job explaining this. I will just say that the brain is an organ of the mind.
This is the definition of a computer:

A device that computes, especially a programmable electronic machine that performs high-speed mathematical or logical operations or that assembles, stores, correlates, or otherwise processes information.

Humans posess these characteristics; excluding the high speed calculations when compared to an industrial computer.

Humans are much more complicated than industrial computers are. This explains for creativity and feelings. Our physcological reactions and stuff is all a result of chemical reactions that are effected by the perceptions of our senses. We cannot, yet, replicate this in an industrial computer. Note that I said "industrial" when I refer to computers. This is supposed to help you identify which sort of computer I am referring to; the industrial kind.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Originally posted by Newton1
FZ+
u just always say why not
u never give any scientific proof
there is no any phonomenon show me that can happen
so i don't believe

If I may speak on behalf of FZ:
FZ says "why not" simply in persuit of the reason why something cannot be done differently, so to speak. It is a perfectly logical, and admirable trait, I think. You learn more that way.
Also, creating a computer the is just like a human is feasible, onece we understand how to do it. If you had any neurological knowledge, you'd have realized it is not as complex as one thinks, morally (i think this is because of human pride...). The feelings we expereince are all a series of chemical reactions. Creativity is the ability to create a possible replica of something that you have perceived before, and quite simply, put it together. (like abstract art). I recommend reading about neurological disorders, this'll help your understanding.
Proof? What kind of proof? physical?? If you wanted any proof you should ask.
So do have to see to believe? I believe electrons exist although I don't see them.

 

[Mentat]

So, who still believes that synthetic (man-made) intelligence is artificial (not genuine)? Why do you still believe so?

 

[Psychodelirium]

Originally posted by Mentat

What is your opinion (please give the reason for choosing as you do)?

Rest assured that fake intelligence is not what McCarthy had in mind when he coined "artificial intelligence", nor is it what any researchers in the field have in mind now (at least not in any skeptical or derogatory sense). Now there is a very uncontentious sense of "artificial" under which it just means "created by an artificer", and AI is clearly that. But part of the implication of the term is that AI models don't need to have psychological realism to be AI models. We use them to study animal cognition, and animal cognition only seems intelligent when all of its relatively stupid and unintelligent parts start working in unison. So it's not surprising that there are AI programs that have no psychological realism at all, or seem utterly stupid, but still count as AI. They count as AI because they help us learn something of how our own minds work.

Perhaps once we have full-blown general intelligence of a human level, calling it AI may suddenly seem inappropriate because of this implication. But since we are nowhere near such models as of yet, it's artificial intelligence, and not artificial intelligence.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Originally posted by Mentat
So, who still believes that synthetic (man-made) intelligence is artificial (not genuine)? Why do you still believe so?

It would first be wise to define what geniune intelligence is. So then we could answer this question according to the definition we come up with.

 

[screwball]

yes artificial
as in not natural
as in not occurring in nature

But if we were to create a fully self aware AI i don't think it should be treated differnetly than any other individual.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Psychodelirium
Rest assured that fake intelligence is not what McCarthy had in mind when he coined "artificial intelligence", nor is it what any researchers in the field have in mind now (at least not in any skeptical or derogatory sense). Now there is a very uncontentious sense of "artificial" under which it just means "created by an artificer", and AI is clearly that. But part of the implication of the term is that AI models don't need to have psychological realism to be AI models. We use them to study animal cognition, and animal cognition only seems intelligent when all of its relatively stupid and unintelligent parts start working in unison. So it's not surprising that there are AI programs that have no psychological realism at all, or seem utterly stupid, but still count as AI. They count as AI because they help us learn something of how our own minds work.

Perhaps once we have full-blown general intelligence of a human level, calling it AI may suddenly seem inappropriate because of this implication. But since we are nowhere near such models as of yet, it's artificial intelligence, and not artificial intelligence.

And yet we don't consider a child's intelligence to be "artificial" in this sense, do we? I think this is a flaw in human reasoning: We made it, so it must be less real. And yet, we make humans all of the time, and those humans are not nearly as intelligent as we are (yet), but of course they aren't "artificial" because they're organic.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by screwball
yes artificial
as in not natural
as in not occurring in nature

But if we were to create a fully self aware AI i don't think it should be treated differnetly than any other individual.

Are humans "unnatural"? The fact that we make it, instead of random occurance (or God, however you want to think of it), makes it less natural?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
It would first be wise to define what geniune intelligence is. So then we could answer this question according to the definition we come up with.

I did:

First Post of This Thread:
Merriam-Webster definition of "intelligence"
Main Entry: in·tel·li·gence
Pronunciation: in-'te-l&-j&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin intelligentia, from intelligent-, intelligens intelligent
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)...

5 : the ability to perform computer functions

 

[zimbo]

Originally posted by heusdens
Anything that is man-made, wether this is a car or a computer, is artificial.

Perhaps, but anything that is man-made is ALSO natural. The opposite of natural is not artificial, but supernatural.

It seems to be nothing more than human arrogance to regard a house as 'artificial' and a beehive as 'natural'.

Everything is natural (unless you believe in a supernatural God, in which case whatever God did 'against the laws of nature' would be supernatural) - humans are natural creatures, and human intelligence is natural intelligence - so why are the products of these natural ingredients 'unnatural'?

Seems to be a bias to exclude humans from 'nature', to elevate humans above the rest of the universe. Surprisingly this line of thinking is common in environmentalists who claim that humans are 'arrogant' in tinkering with 'nature' - perhaps it is the environmentalists who are arrogant in seeing themselves as distinct from the 'natural world'?

 

[Siv]

Originally posted by Mentat
And yet we don't consider a child's intelligence to be "artificial" in this sense, do we? I think this is a flaw in human reasoning: We made it, so it must be less real. And yet, we make humans all of the time, and those humans are not nearly as intelligent as we are (yet), but of course they aren't "artificial" because they're organic.

We don't make humans ... as in, we don't code their DNA.
But we do make computers - hardware and software. There's a difference.

As PsychoD explained, in the term AI, the emphasis is not on the quality of intelligence, but who codes/designs it. If it has been done through natural selection and random mutations ... then its "natural" and if it has been coded/designed by the brain of an entity who has been coded/designed by natural selection, then it is artificial.
The term has no other significance beyond that.

- S.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Siv
We don't make humans ... as in, we don't code their DNA.
But we do make computers - hardware and software. There's a difference.

As PsychoD explained, in the term AI, the emphasis is not on the quality of intelligence, but who codes/designs it. If it has been done through natural selection and random mutations ... then its "natural" and if it has been coded/designed by the brain of an entity who has been coded/designed by natural selection, then it is artificial.
The term has no other significance beyond that.

- S.

Then why do so many people use "Artificial" in the derogatory form? They think that the fact that it is "artificial" (man-made) is evidence of it's not being genuine.

Besides, we don't make the pieces of metal, or the electric currents, that we make use of in computers. The material is there, and what programs it shouldn't be a determining factor of whether it is genuine or not. Besides, Neandertal Man (for example) doesn't exist anymore because of Natural Selection, right? If this is so, then why do some assume that it had something to do with more intelligent humans? It's because Natural Selection can make use of intelligence, and has in the past. So, one shouldn't call something that is not a random occurance "unnatural", when it was caused by a force of Natural Selection (humans).

Also, not all forces of Natural Selection (even excluding humans) are random (e.g. Sexual Selection).

 

[selfAdjoint]

I voted yes, artificial, but I distinguish two situations.

1) Some human artifact, say the web, becomes conscious without humans intending it. Then I could see the case for calling that intelligence natural. The hardware was constructed but not (specifically0 the intelligence.

2) Humans build some artifact that is intended to be conscious, and it works. Then the intelligence is just as much an artifact as a vacuum cleaner.

I believe the first - very primitive - forerunner of case (1) occurred at Christmas time in 1963 or '64. The telephone network became saturated with calls, and it was later found that the switching network had devised and used a completely unexpected path from the east cost to the west using remote small-cap phone nets in Montana and such to bypass the congestion of the main circuits. The techs were flabbergasted. A mighty titan had stirred in its sleep.

 

[FZ+]

This raised a point. Is mankind artificial, as we made our children through our actions? (eg. copulation, pregnancy etc etc)

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Artificial is usually used to describe non-biological things that don't occur in nature, naturally.

 

[Mentat]

Yes, and people are continuing to refer to that definition of "artificial". Let me make it clear (again) that I absolutely agree that anything man-made is artificial, in that sense. Let me also clear up (again) that the definition of "artificial" that I don't think applies to man-made computer intelligence, is "not-genuine".

 

[quantumcarl]

Humans are not the end-all be all of creation.

Therefore just as humans were created by nature... what humans create are a part of nature as well.

My definition here is that there is no such thing as "artifical". The universe has created all that is... including humans. Humans merely continue the process.

If "man-made" described artifical... then Mentat... and everyone else... is artifical.

Computers are tools of humans, so far... "artifacts"... per sey. At some point they may become independant of humans... but for now they are artifacts of the human species.

Philosophically,logically and in the large picture of things "artifical" does not exist.

 

[wimms]

I have abit different view on artificial. Maybe non-conventional understanding though.

Artificial is any system that is forced into existence by means that increase thermodynamic entropy.
Natural is any system that "condensates" into existence by means that decrease thermodynamic entropy.

In a closed system, balance of the two is maintained, thus entropy of a closed system doesn't change much.

Don't want to go in too deep, but basic idea is that to reshape a given stable system, external force must first act destructively to the internal balance of a system. This act is also destructive to external system, the result is increase of entropy.
When system is left alone, inside it localised condensates of stable subsystems emerge purely due to limited freedom imposed by laws compared to infinite freedom implied by randomness. Thus, entropy gets reduced spontaneously, creating stable systems. Think ice formation for eg. When entropy of a system is too high, formation is not possible, as it would be destructed immediately. Think about phase shifts, they are related to change in entropy.

So, to me it appears that definition of artificial depends on frame you consider as a system. Every time lighting strikes into mud, it artificially reshapes it. But Earth's ecosystem as a whole, its natural process.

Manmade computer is extremely destructive process at all levels around that box itself that's finally the product. So there is nothing genuine about it. Even software creation is as destructive.

Despite that, when software runs iteratively, and produces shapes or systems that are result of software rules rather than direct forcement, those shapes are genuine, natural. If they can become complex enough to "think", then so be it, natural intellect.

Unfortunately, current computers work by principle that makes this naturalness impossible. Computers are extremely destructive machines - every single bit of information is forced to a new state by destroying stable state of millions of electrons. There is absolutely no naturalness inside computers, except maybe that abstract program flow. This destructiveness is btw the main reason why computers consume increasingly more power and produce increasingly more heat.
And overwhelmingly most of the time computer is exactly as dumb as its programmer is.

From this reasoning its very difficult to say whether human baby is artificial body or not, but its intellect most probably is natural.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wimms
I have abit different view on artificial. Maybe non-conventional understanding though.

Artificial is any system that is forced into existence by means that increase thermodynamic entropy.
Natural is any system that "condensates" into existence by means that decrease thermodynamic entropy.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics postulates that the entropy of a closed system must increase or remain constant. This would thus be the "natural" way, would it not?

 

[wimms]

Natural is here in meaning of non-artificial, genuine, nonforced.

Not to open can of worms, but I'm kind of guy who disrespects 2nd law of entropy anywhere else but in closed-system cyclic heat engine, applicable to specifically heat only...

If you mean on wide scale, then imo "natural" is that entropy remains same. In reality, it somewhere decreases, with corresponding increase elsewhere, and it is assumed that in general, it increases. I'm slightly surprised why ambient temperature is going down then. But its such a perverted term that its hard to make sense of it.

But with several semiclosed systems interacting, from perspective of a system, increase of entropy is not natural, its destructive. Of course, afterall, death is very natural phenomena..

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wimms
Natural is here in meaning of non-artificial, genuine, nonforced.

Not to open can of worms, but I'm kind of guy who disrespects 2nd law of entropy anywhere else but in closed-system cyclic heat engine, applicable to specifically heat only...

If you mean on wide scale, then imo "natural" is that entropy remains same. In reality, it somewhere decreases, with corresponding increase elsewhere, and it is assumed that in general, it increases. I'm slightly surprised why ambient temperature is going down then. But its such a perverted term that its hard to make sense of it.

But with several semiclosed systems interacting, from perspective of a system, increase of entropy is not natural, its destructive. Of course, afterall, death is very natural phenomena..

Exactly. It's destructive nature is precisely what makes is natural.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, in the sense of "artificial"'s meaning "man-made". However, the definition that I argue against, is that of not being genuine, or being "fake".

The argument then is not about the word "artificial" but about the word "inteligent". Can something articial be inteliigent?

I would assume it can.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

I agree. Something artificial can be intelligent. Computers in particular (there are other artificial things besides computers) can be intelligent, in the sense that they posses knowledge. They could attain knowledge, but not on their own. Is this genuine intelligence? What makes intelligence geniune?

Mentat, I'm starting to get the point. I apologize for not paying enough attention to the main point.

 

[C0mmie]

In view of the definition of "artificial" provided in the beginning of this thread, computers would most certainly be artificial, but that is not to say that they will not be capable of intelligence. In my opinion, saying that a computer will always be inferior to human beings in its ability to think is an insult to our own aspirations and abilities.

I recently had to write a paper for my high school critical thinking class about AI. If anyone is interested:


http://www25.brinkster.com/aleksey/paper.htm

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Mentat
Exactly. It's destructive nature is precisely what makes is natural.

What you mean, that there is no such thing as 'artificial', that everything is natural? That would destroy distinction between concepts of genuine and artificial. I'd still find them useful.

To go slightly further, consider degeneration of an intellect. Its natural by means of destructive environment. Consider knowledge obtained by experience - its genuine, selfmade, natural, opposed to destructive natural environament. Consider learned knowledge - its artificial, enforced from outside. Consider new induction made based upon that artificial knowledge, its genuine again. Consider you tell that knew knowledge to me, its artificial to me. And so on, these concepts are in constant relation and exchange.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

What you mean, that there is no such thing as 'artificial', that everything is natural? That would destroy distinction between concepts of genuine and artificial. I'd still find them useful.

Well, think about it. Everything that we make is created with essentially natural things. I could make a catapult and call it artificial, but technically, since I built it with wood, it is natural.
A computer is made up of microchips, which are made of silicon, which is made of (if I remember correctly) highly compressed sand. Sand is natural, therefore, it is tenable to say that silicon is natural since its basic existence was based on 'nautral' products. Natural in this sense could be subjective, do you think?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
The argument then is not about the word "artificial" but about the word "inteligent". Can something articial be inteliigent?

I would assume it can.

No, the argument is about thinking of artificial intelligence as somehow less genuine than animal intelligence.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
I agree. Something artificial can be intelligent. Computers in particular (there are other artificial things besides computers) can be intelligent, in the sense that they posses knowledge. They could attain knowledge, but not on their own. Is this genuine intelligence? What makes intelligence geniune?

Mentat, I'm starting to get the point. I apologize for not paying enough attention to the main point.

Don't be, most people didn't get the point, at least not on their first post. I probably just wasn't clear enough with the question.

Anyway, your last two questions really strike the crux of the matter, and so I hope that they will get answers.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wimms
What you mean, that there is no such thing as 'artificial', that everything is natural? That would destroy distinction between concepts of genuine and artificial. I'd still find them useful.

Yes, everything is natural, because everything exists within "Nature".

To go slightly further, consider degeneration of an intellect. Its natural by means of destructive environment. Consider knowledge obtained by experience - its genuine, selfmade, natural, opposed to destructive natural environament. Consider learned knowledge - its artificial, enforced from outside. Consider new induction made based upon that artificial knowledge, its genuine again. Consider you tell that knew knowledge to me, its artificial to me. And so on, these concepts are in constant relation and exchange.

You are misusing the word "artificial" here. Perhaps you should look it up in a dictionary. No offense implied, I just think you should reconcile your reasoning with the actual meaning(s) of the word "artificial".

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, everything is natural, because everything exists within "Nature".

It is of course true that "artificial" is an artificial concept itself, nature does not have the concept of "artificial", but humans do. Yet, to humans, it is a meaningfull concept, and distringuishes between things that exist within nature (including man itself) that did not in any way depend on the existence of humans, for modifications to the natural reality.
Houses do not come into existence because of Nature alone, but because humans build them, despite the fact that all materials and even the energy used when building a house, arrive from nature.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Yes, but how about artificial intelligence?

What heusdens said is key to answering the above question. Artificial intelligence is the result of human innovation. Like computers have a certain extent of artificial intelligence. They have artificial intelligence because they were built by humans.

What is artificial intelligence?

artificial intelligence classifies something that was created by humans, and posesses intelligence.

can intelligence really be artificial?

uhh...your turn!