3 ms·

> "Intelligence" as we have come to understand it is not some magical thing I agree that intelligence can be replicated. My preferred definition of intelligenc

> "Intelligence" as we have come to understand it is not some magical thing I agree that intelligence can be replicated. My preferred definition of intelligence is broad. Intelligence is a system that has i/o & a feedback cycle. Thus, I think all matter & concepts have intelligence. Of course, there are higher forms of intelligence, such as human intelligence (which is not limited to the brain as we have a complete nervous system & more generally, autonomous cells). I still think it's magical, however. Even if we understand all of the rules & procedures, the experience of it all coming together fills me with awe. It's like playing a game where you understand the rules, yet you can achieve zen & a higher consciousness when playing. Another example is Fractals. The driving equation is simple, yet infinite complexity & beauty is created. > Reproducing intelligence is mostly a matter of finding the correct formula, the right structures, the right technology. After that it will be boring, ordinary, even disposable. This doesn't sit well with some people who reject that on an emotional level even if they can't figure out any concrete reason why. It just can't be. Animals & possibly lower life forms have evolved emotions. It's an important part of what drives us to do whatever we do. I would not be surprised if AI will need emotions to reach higher intelligence. I have also been driven to honor all life & intelligence. I see the interconnections within the system of existence & aspire to respect all of it's parts. When I hold such a mindset, I'm at my best.

Crito 13y ago
Emotion may be necessary for human-like intelligent systems, however I think you've missed his point. He's not saying that emotion will not be created or emerge in synthetic intelligent systems; rather he's saying that emotional arguments, rather than logical arguments, are rubbish. In other words, "I don't want this to be true, because I don't like the implications, therefore I think that it is not true" is not sound. Whether or not emotion plays an important role in intelligence is irrelevant.
- briantakita 13y ago
  > he's saying that emotional arguments, rather than logical arguments, are rubbish. That's true if the system in question is entirely based on logic. That means it's probably a static (non-creative) system, as emotions often are involved in creative systems. Note that creating a logical system is itself a creative system. Side note: part of arguments are about framing the system. Often times, disagreements arise because the parties aren't even talking about the same system. A party will often be focused on a subsystem or an entirely different system.

Crito 13y ago

Emotion may be necessary for human-like intelligent systems, however I think you've missed his point. He's not saying that emotion will not be created or emerge in synthetic intelligent systems; rather he's saying that emotional arguments, rather than logical arguments, are rubbish. In other words, "I don't want this to be true, because I don't like the implications, therefore I think that it is not true" is not sound. Whether or not emotion plays an important role in intelligence is irrelevant.

briantakita 13y ago
> he's saying that emotional arguments, rather than logical arguments, are rubbish. That's true if the system in question is entirely based on logic. That means it's probably a static (non-creative) system, as emotions often are involved in creative systems. Note that creating a logical system is itself a creative system. Side note: part of arguments are about framing the system. Often times, disagreements arise because the parties aren't even talking about the same system. A party will often be focused on a subsystem or an entirely different system.