4 ms·

AI is just a subset of intelligence. You absolutely can describe capitalism as an intelligent system since it is primarily made up of units (people) which are

by Sakes 11y ago

AI is just a subset of intelligence. You absolutely can describe capitalism as an intelligent system since it is primarily made up of units (people) which are intelligent. If capitalism didn't have a coherent behavior, then how could we ever rely upon it as a primary driver of our economy? It must be coherent and on some level understandable for us to make predictions around it.

nevinera 11y ago
You can call an ecosystem 'intelligent' if you want to, I suppose, but there's not really any way to discuss it as a 'maximizer' when it has no goals and no intentional behavior. You could as easily describe water as a 'gravitational potential' minimizer - it has a collective aggregate behavior that you can characterize, but that doesn't make it intelligent by most definitions of the word. >If capitalism didn't have a coherent behavior, then how could we ever rely upon it as a primary driver of our economy? It is not a 'primary driver' of our economy, it is a description of our economy. The primary driver of our economy is corporations - entities obeying a profit motive. They have behaviors, intentions, and goals - they attempt maximize shareholder profits. "Capitalism" doesn't intend anything, have any goals; it doesn't even have any non-emergent behaviors.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Sakes 11y ago
  Every time I start writing a response to this, I can't help but feel it will simply be misinterpreted. I thought my original response was pretty succinct and clear. If you'd like to continue, please select one discrepancy and I'll be happy to discuss it further with you.
  - nevinera 11y ago
    Our disagreement may be definitional - your original response was succinct and clear, but did not make an argument, merely an assertion. A) I see no reason that 'being made up of units which are intelligent' ought to classify a system as intelligent. B) I see no way in which you can usefully talk about anything without intentional behavior as a 'maximizing intelligence'. You can't call 'capitalism' the 'driver of our economy' for the same reason you can't call 'ecology' the 'driver of natural selection' or 'conflict' the 'driver of our military conquests'. You are conflating a system with the units in the system, and talking about an ecology of intelligent units as if it is satisfying some behavioral utility function. 'Capitalism' doesn't have a utility function, because it doesn't have decision-making capacity, which is pretty much the only prerequisite for intelligent behavior. It doesn't drive our economy, it is our economy. The actors in the system are corporations and humans (and governments, unions, and a few other united organizational structures), therefore those are the things which can exhibit intelligence.
    - Sakes 11y ago
      Thanks so much for responding. I agree that a significant cause of our disagreement is definitional. I'll get back to you either later this evening or tomorrow with a response that your comment deserves. For now, there is billable work to be done.
    - Sakes 11y ago
      I hope you don't mind, but I'm only going to address one thing right now. If the conversation continues, I will continue to discuss more with you. Lets start with (A). You are correct, the way I described it does not explicitly explain how it is intelligent. Lets adopt the strictest definition of intelligence which is the ability to predict. When I refer to capitalism here, I'll be referring to capitalism implemented, not the theory. Capitalism is intelligent. It is made up of people which are intelligent. These components are at times working together, and at times working against each other. Much like your conscious mind and subconscious mind. Conflicts are resolved in the market or through the state via legislation and trials. The results of components working together and resolving their conflicts is how capitalism has decided to behave. Having behavior is not sufficient for intelligence. A virus has behavior but is not intelligent. So does a capitalist system make predictions? One example should be sufficient to make the answer to this question yes. If I can show that a capitalist system makes predictions, then I will have proven that it is intelligent. Lets use America for this example. One thing American Capitalism seeks is to mute the highs / lows of the inherit booms and busts in-order to increase the level of stability of the economy. The Fed watches the rates of lending / borrowing to predict bubbles and raises interest rates to slow / stop the growth of bubbles. Once it has popped, and lending/borrowing slows, the Fed then lowers interest rates to promote lending / borrowing. I know this is not new info for you. I just wanted to be thorough in my response. So American Capitalism predicts bubbles and acts on those predictions. Thus, intelligent. You might say the Fed isn't capitalism. Which would be true. But your brain isn't you yet it is the component which makes you intelligent. The Fed is part of America's capitalist system. You might say that capitalism does not involve government. Which I would say, pure capitalism doesn't involve government, but the active capitalist systems we have today do.
      - 11y ago

by Sakes 11y ago

nevinera 11y ago

You can call an ecosystem 'intelligent' if you want to, I suppose, but there's not really any way to discuss it as a 'maximizer' when it has no goals and no intentional behavior. You could as easily describe water as a 'gravitational potential' minimizer - it has a collective aggregate behavior that you can characterize, but that doesn't make it intelligent by most definitions of the word. >If capitalism didn't have a coherent behavior, then how could we ever rely upon it as a primary driver of our economy? It is not a 'primary driver' of our economy, it is a description of our economy. The primary driver of our economy is corporations - entities obeying a profit motive. They have behaviors, intentions, and goals - they attempt maximize shareholder profits. "Capitalism" doesn't intend anything, have any goals; it doesn't even have any non-emergent behaviors.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Sakes 11y ago
Every time I start writing a response to this, I can't help but feel it will simply be misinterpreted. I thought my original response was pretty succinct and clear. If you'd like to continue, please select one discrepancy and I'll be happy to discuss it further with you.
- nevinera 11y ago
  Our disagreement may be definitional - your original response was succinct and clear, but did not make an argument, merely an assertion. A) I see no reason that 'being made up of units which are intelligent' ought to classify a system as intelligent. B) I see no way in which you can usefully talk about anything without intentional behavior as a 'maximizing intelligence'. You can't call 'capitalism' the 'driver of our economy' for the same reason you can't call 'ecology' the 'driver of natural selection' or 'conflict' the 'driver of our military conquests'. You are conflating a system with the units in the system, and talking about an ecology of intelligent units as if it is satisfying some behavioral utility function. 'Capitalism' doesn't have a utility function, because it doesn't have decision-making capacity, which is pretty much the only prerequisite for intelligent behavior. It doesn't drive our economy, it is our economy. The actors in the system are corporations and humans (and governments, unions, and a few other united organizational structures), therefore those are the things which can exhibit intelligence.
  - Sakes 11y ago
    Thanks so much for responding. I agree that a significant cause of our disagreement is definitional. I'll get back to you either later this evening or tomorrow with a response that your comment deserves. For now, there is billable work to be done.
  - Sakes 11y ago
    I hope you don't mind, but I'm only going to address one thing right now. If the conversation continues, I will continue to discuss more with you. Lets start with (A). You are correct, the way I described it does not explicitly explain how it is intelligent. Lets adopt the strictest definition of intelligence which is the ability to predict. When I refer to capitalism here, I'll be referring to capitalism implemented, not the theory. Capitalism is intelligent. It is made up of people which are intelligent. These components are at times working together, and at times working against each other. Much like your conscious mind and subconscious mind. Conflicts are resolved in the market or through the state via legislation and trials. The results of components working together and resolving their conflicts is how capitalism has decided to behave. Having behavior is not sufficient for intelligence. A virus has behavior but is not intelligent. So does a capitalist system make predictions? One example should be sufficient to make the answer to this question yes. If I can show that a capitalist system makes predictions, then I will have proven that it is intelligent. Lets use America for this example. One thing American Capitalism seeks is to mute the highs / lows of the inherit booms and busts in-order to increase the level of stability of the economy. The Fed watches the rates of lending / borrowing to predict bubbles and raises interest rates to slow / stop the growth of bubbles. Once it has popped, and lending/borrowing slows, the Fed then lowers interest rates to promote lending / borrowing. I know this is not new info for you. I just wanted to be thorough in my response. So American Capitalism predicts bubbles and acts on those predictions. Thus, intelligent. You might say the Fed isn't capitalism. Which would be true. But your brain isn't you yet it is the component which makes you intelligent. The Fed is part of America's capitalist system. You might say that capitalism does not involve government. Which I would say, pure capitalism doesn't involve government, but the active capitalist systems we have today do.
    - 11y ago