JAY@USC-ECLC@sri-unix.UUCP (08/26/83)
From: Jay <JAY@USC-ECLC> An intelligence must have at least three abilities; To act; To perceive, and classify (as one of: better, the same, worse) the results of its actions, or the environment after the action; and lastly To change its future actions in light of what it has perceived, in attempt to maximize "goodness", and avoid "badness". My views are very obviously flavored by behaviorism. In defense of objections I hear coming... To act is necessary for intelligence, since it is pointless to call a rock intelligent since there seems to be no way to detect it. To perceive is necessary of intelligence since otherwise projectiles, simple chemicals, and other things that act following a set of rules, would be classified as intelligent. To change future actions is the most important since a toaster could perceive that it was overheating, oxidizing its heating elements, and thus dying, but would be unable to stop toasting until it suffered a breakdown. In summary (NOT (AND actp percievep evolvep)) -> (NOT intelligent), or Action, Perception, and Evolution based upon perception is necessary for intelligence. I *believe* that these conditions are also sufficient for intelligence. awaiting flames, j' PS. Yes, the earth's bio-system IS intelligent.
MONTALVO@MIT-OZ@sri-unix.UUCP (08/30/83)
I would like to see an analysis (probably NOT on AIList, althought maybe some short speculation might be appropriate) of the levels of complexity that a learner could have. For example, one with a representation of the agent's action would be more complicated (therefore, more intelligent) than one without. Probably a Planaria has no representation of it's actions, only of the results of its actions.
loeb@uiuccsb.UUCP (09/16/83)
#R:sri-arpa:-483200:uiuccsb:5500001:000:876
uiuccsb!loeb Sep 15 17:05:00 1983
Perhaps it would be helpful to consider the Most complicated learner.
If there is no limit, then, as the mystics say, the perfect learner will
deduce from any observation the nature of the entire universe.
From this limit case, it would seem that the complexity of a learner
is related to its deductive power. As human society, which contains
the whole of science, has greater deductive power than an individual,
it would seem to be a more complex learner.
Another obvious factor is experience, but it is interesting that induction
is not necessary in the limit. This is probably because the perfect learner
learns everything instantly from a single experience -- ie it deduces all
ordinarily induced conclusions. So speed is another factor.
Given all this nonsense, what does it mean if there Is a limit to
the complexity of a learner?