pnettlet@gara.une.oz.au (Philip Nettleton) (06/24/91)
People are again batting the breeze with notions about Turing Tests, intelligence and how to define it. Those of you who were not watching this news group last year (and indeed comp.ai as well) would have missed some fruitful Global participation on a "working definition" of intelligence (artificial or otherwise, and independent of human prejudices, etc). The definition makes no attempt to quantify the "degree" of intelligence, only whether a particular system can be "classed" as intelligent. Ie, a human is, a cat is, a beatle is, a brick isn't, etc. I shall repost the fourth and most comprehensive version of that definition of intelligence for those who missed out and ask again for "constructive" criticisms. As before, any constructive criticisms will find their way into a new version of the definition and flames will be duly ignored. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DEFINITION: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF AN INTELLIGENT SYSTEM. a) The system MUST be able to learn. This implies that the system MUST have a memory for learning to be maintained. Also learning comes in a number of varieties: i) It MUST be able to learn from its own experiences. These can be broken down into further groupings: 1) Learning through trial and error. 2) Learning through observation. 3) Learning through active reasoning. ii) It SHOULD be able to learn by instruction, but this is not necessary. At the very least the system MUST have preprogrammed instincts. This is a boot strap for the developing intelligence. Without a starting point, the system cannot progress. b) The system MUST be autonomous. That is to say, it MUST be able to do things by itself (however may choose to accept aid). This can be dissected as: i) The system MUST be able to affect its environment based on its own independent conclusions. ii) The system MUST be its own master first and foremost, and therefore not require operator intervention to function. This does not necessarily rule out the taking of orders from another system, but the choice to obey MUST be made by the system itself. iii) The system MUST be motivated. It must have needs and requirements that can be satisfied by its own actions. c) The system MUST be able to reason. That is to say, it must use some form of reasoning, based on known facts and capable of producing insights which later become known facts. It should be noted that the degree of certainty about the truth of a known fact is also an important concept and some way of dealing with uncertainty MUST be provided. d) The system MUST be able to develop self awareness. This is related to autonomy, reasoning and learning, but also embodies the need for internal and external senses. Without these senses there is no way of appreciating the difference between "me" and "outside of me". Sensations of pain and pleasure can provide motivation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DEFINITION OF TERMS. 1) A "system" CAN be comprised of multiple subsystems, each one of these could be a system in its own right (systems theory). 2) The "environment" in which the system exists MUST be external to the system, but that is as far as the definition of the environment goes (it could be computer generated). 3) The terms "learning", "reasoning" and "autonomy" are BEHAVIOURAL characteristics, further supported by our understanding (to date) of how they MIGHT work. 4) The term "self awareness" is based on learning, reasoning and autonomy, and is the state where the system is aware (has knowledge) of its own existence as separate from its environment. 5) "Intelligence" is a BEHAVIOURAL phenomena displayed by intelligent systems. 6) "Truth" about a known fact is SUBJECTIVE with respect to the system. Ultimate truth is an ideal which is seldom achievable even in "human intelligence". 7) "Certainty" is a statistical measure of the probability of a fact being true. 8) "Reasoning" can never be independent of a language (read any good book on logic and this will become evident). The language, however need have no verbal or social component. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
jamesm@gemma.cs.rpi.edu (Michael James) (06/24/91)
In article <7135@gara.une.oz.au> pnettlet@gara.une.oz.au (Philip Nettleton) writes: >People are again batting the breeze with notions about Turing Tests, >intelligence and how to define it. Those of you who were not watching ....stuff omitted >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DEFINITION: > GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF AN INTELLIGENT SYSTEM. > .....other stuff omitted >---------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm glad this was posted at this time because I spent all of last weekend trying to construct just such a definition. I never could get it to say what I wanted, though (big surprise, eh?). I have some problems with the definition that Philip posted; these are not flames but just problems that I am struggling with. 1) What is learning? I'm not talking about a phrase or off-hand remark. I am wanting an explicit definition. 2) What are instincts? 3) What is instruction? It seems to me that when we say something learns by instruction, it is actually doing what we would call learning by observation. The materials under observation are just manipulated by an outside entity to facilitate the 'learning.' 4) What does it mean to say something is motivated? When I tell my dog to fetch his bone and he does this because he knows that I will give him something to eat, how is this different from a micro-organism which always heads toward light sources or a computer which computes the sum of two numbers? I'm not sure I see any difference between them except in degree of complexity. 5) (Oh boy) What does it mean to reason? I still am pretty clueless on this one. Do we 'learn' how to 'reason?' 6) Is self-awareness the same thing or an ingredient of consciousness? Or neither? The definition of terms section presented in the original posting says that things such as learning and reasoning are behavioral phenomena. I'm not sure that this is explicit enough to serve as a basis for the recognition of learning or reasoning. mj --------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael James Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute jamesm@turing.cs.rpi.edu
eb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Eric James Bales) (06/25/91)
jamesm@gemma.cs.rpi.edu (Michael James) writes: > 1) What is learning? I'm not talking about a phrase or off-hand remark. > I am wanting an explicit definition. Learning is more than just remembering something, such as a computer storing a bit of data in a look up table so that it will know what to do when presented with a specific situation in the future. IMHO, learning is being able to apply that information to other situations, some of which can be quite dissimilar. Learning, to me, is applying your memories. > 5) (Oh boy) What does it mean to reason? I still am pretty clueless on this > one. Do we 'learn' how to 'reason?' In order to apply what you remember to situations other than the exact one that you learned, you have to be able to reason. To be able to draw parallels between two situations or events. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- eb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu -Eric Kirkbride- -The second dolphin- Dolphins. Soon you will be one of us, and then you will understand. Disclaimer: What do I know about philosophy? I'm an Engineer!
erwin@trwacs.UUCP (Harry Erwin) (06/25/91)
One concept that I've found of use in this area is that of a "self-simulation." This is a simulation of the future that originally evolved to aid in movement at night and in closed environments. It seems to be a mammalian characteristic. It also seems to be associated with a sense of self in the primates. The evolved uses of that simulation appear to be associated with many of the meanings we associate with "intelligence." -- Harry Erwin Internet: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com
jane@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Jane Philcox) (06/28/91)
I am aware that this whole question involves subtleties of which I know nothing, and that there are some formal studies in this subject of which I also know nothing. However, I think I have something to say from the empirical point of view on this one: In article <-hclt6l@rpi.edu> jamesm@gemma.cs.rpi.edu (Michael James) writes: >5) (Oh boy) What does it mean to reason? I still am pretty clueless on this > one. Do we 'learn' how to 'reason?' Without wishing to get into an argument about what it means to reason, on a normal day-to-day level I would say it means reasoning from cause to effect (however you wish to define those terms!). Yes we do have to learn how to do it - a small child who is learning to talk is unable to connect the two. A couple of years later, the child is starting to be able to connect things like "I just tripped the baby up and fell over him, and now my shoulder hurts," with "If I hadn't tripped the baby up, my shoulder probably wouldn't be hurting." At an earlier stage, the connection was to "If I hadn't fallen over the baby, my shoulder probably wouldn't be hurting," so it was the baby's fault. Now it is the child's fault. There is an obvious development in ability to follow a chain of causality (is that the right term?) here, particularly as the conclusion the older child is reaching is actually _less_ palatable than the one s/he would have reached earlier. I would _guess_ that later development in formal reasoning would probably follow along the same lines. Of course, in both cases, the quality of the teaching, from the parents in the first instance, and the instructor in the second, must be crucial. I suspect it would be a rare person indeed who could make the jump unassisted. Regards, Jane. -- A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.