3 ms·
There exists no "general" intelligence. Intelligence, by definition, has to be measured along something. Problem solving is one area, but this is not the funda
by 7373737373 7y ago
There exists no "general" intelligence. Intelligence, by definition, has to be measured along something.
Problem solving is one area, but this is not the fundamental cause [0] of why human brains evolved toward what they are now. Survival, necessitated by and coupled with reproduction makes life exist at the current scale, like with any (behavioral) pattern which favours existence and self-propagation. What we call life IS intelligence.
[0] Or rather, explanation, with the fundamental cause being "physics, as it is"
I recommend:
https://selfawaresystems.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/nature_of_self_improving_ai.pdf https://selfawaresystems.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/nature_...
- drdeca 7y agoYou say “by definition”? By what definition??
- 7373737373 7y agoMaybe more "by nature"? If it were not measurable, there would be no point in discussing it.
- drdeca 7y agoI’m not sure what you mean by “along something”? Do you just mean a standard by which to measure? If you just mean that there needs to be a way of determining, in some cases, that one thing is “more intelligent” than another, then yes, that is necessary for “intelligence” to be a useful notion. But we do have methods of doing that, so there is no problem there. Note that the way we have of comparing intelligence needn’t be a linear order. It can be a partial order.
- 7373737373 7y agoI agree, it's multidimensional. If "general" truly meant general purpose, the measure might be how well the system arranges every possible (sequence of) combination(s) of matter and energy in space and time, while optimizing along any combination of these. But that in itself is not a single objective, but a set of objectives, and not really a utility function.