|Definition of AI||11/24/2000|
|- Re: 1||George Bajszar||12/07/2000|
|- - Re: 2||12/08/2000|
|- - - Re: 3||George Bajszar||12/08/2000|
|- - - - Re: 4||12/10/2000|
I can offer one formal definition of AI. It is on the address:
This definition is pretty different form the other which I read and the main difference is that other definition assumes that Intelligence is a human plus knowledge. It this definition Intelligence in only a human and the knowledge is something the can be obtained.
Very interesting thoughts, though I felt little incompleteness. I have an argument about the meaning of life where you claimed:
"We have everything up to this moment. We have a world
and a device that lives in it. However, there is one thing
missing - the meaning of life. What is life without pain
and joy, a philosopher would say. That is why we will
introduce meaning of life. This will be an evaluation to
tell us whether one row v0, v1, v2, ... is better than
Perhaps you need to consider another perspective, not just pain and joy, but you are close.
The meaning of life in provided to us by "rules" fabricated in our societies.
To bring one example is "marriage", a rule that we accepted and learned to *honor* blindly. When we honor a rule, we value it. Not that the physical world would change if the concept of marriage would disappear, couples would still live the same lives, but without "establishment" of such rules, life would simply feel *emptier*, or less complex. All such rules are designed in a way to mark, or celebrate specific abilities that humans are limited by their physical scope to perform and act upon.
In societies rules present all meanings for people's lives. For example a national flag is an establishment that nationals relate their identity to. The more complex the rules of a government, the more firm will the image of the government appear and the more strength people can relate their nationalistic identity to.
Regardless how misguided and corrupted some systems are (i.e. Nazi Germany), people in their nature will stand up for themselves as they identify their identity by their governments (not all people of course).
Now take for instance Robinson Crusoe who landed on the deserted island. Why did the value of life suddenly became so much worse for him at the island than in society? Because he cannot express himself as his identity alone became meaningless. The rules that formed his intellect are formulated where he grew up, that is where he found his "role" in life where he learned to respect and to live up to others expectations, thus be respected.
So one importance about the meaning of life is the ability to grow one's intellect and ability to use and "express" that knowledge. The more knowledge, the more tools available for expression, the richer life becomes.
That brings a simple social and psychological conclusion that people who can express themselves better are happier in general, and people who are suppressed from expression are more depressed in nature, clearly the original psychology behind the idea of prisons; and one simple psychological aspect of humanity the communist countries failed to ever understand.
Hope this helps,
Dear George Bajszar,
It is very nice that you like my article.
Yes, I agree with you that the meaning of the life for AI is defined too simple and this is not the same meaning for the people. You wrote that for the human meaning of the life can be the marriage or the country. Yes but this are not basic concepts. If you want to understand what is "marriage" then first you should to understand what is man and a woman. As you wrote, this meaning of the life is not programmed in the human being but comes from the society, i.e. from the education. For me the human has only one real rule and this is the evolutionary rule: To live. In our world stay only people who want to live and to continue the life. We continue our life with our genetic code and with our education (culture). This mean that human has not built-in rules and he makes his rules alone or receives them by the education.
If we need intelligent engine then what should be its meaning of the life. For me it has to be a good student and the meaning of its life should be to satisfy its teacher. If you have such a device you can teach it to higher level rules like "country" but first you have to explain it what is this.
> Dear George Bajszar,
> It is very nice that you like my article.
> Yes, I agree with you that the meaning of the life for AI is
> defined too simple and this is not the same meaning for the
> people. You wrote that for the human meaning of the life can
> be the marriage or the country. Yes but this are not basic
> concepts. If you want to understand what is "marriage" then
> first you should to understand what is man and a woman.
> As you wrote, this meaning of the life is not programmed in
> the human being but comes from the society, i.e. from the
> education. For me the human has only one real rule and this
> is the evolutionary rule: To live.
> In our world stay only people who want to live and to
> continue the life. We continue our life with our genetic
> code and with our education (culture). This mean that
> human has not built-in rules and he makes his
> rules alone or receives them by the education.
There are built in goals (rules), I'll describe them below.
> If we need intelligent engine then
what should be its
> meaning of the life.
Goals serving as motivations for its behavior. Rules are just tools used for achieving goals.
> For me it has to be a good student
> and the meaning of its life should be to satisfy its
> teacher. If you have such a device you can teach it to
> higher level rules like "country" but first you have to
> explain it what is this.
Observational knowledge of our world is described by associative rules organized in our heads, and some of these (fabricated) concepts such as marriage serves as guidelines in our social lives. Social life consists of rules, i.e. government is an establishment of rules governing everyday life of people. Rules provide logical meanings to our behaviors, but I forgot to mention the core drive beneath all social behaviors.
I pointed out the "freedom of expression" in society to be an important aspect of a person. If freedom of expression is suppressed in a person as with Robinson Crusoe, the goals in day to day life representing the meaning of life for that person is obstructed.
Thus to have a meaning to life, there must be goals present. Beneath all complex sociological behaviors, I believe there is one goal that explains why "personal expression" in day to day life is so important for most of us: in the most basic form, to achieve higher success rate in being genetically selected.
Not many want to be a bum in society, everyone wants to be respected and feeling like being somebody. These are "drives" motivated by our natural selection instincts. Thus the core goals in life: survival instincts and competitive adaptation to society driven by natural selection instincts. Complex social behavior resulted from intelligent manipulation, complexification of those basic goals IMO.
> There are built in goals (rules), I'll describe
Dear George Bajszar,
In general I agree with you but I am a mathematician and I want to say all with few words. Yes I agree that the survival instinct and the instinct for continuing the life are built-in goals (rules). There is one more instinct, it is the instinct to study (or to be curious).
I believe that the human being consist of two parts. First is the genetic code (let say that this is the new born baby) and second is the education (culture, religion, ideology, knowledge and so on).
If you take one baby and give it to a new parents then when it grows up it will be more close to it new parents then to its genetic parents. This mean that education is very important part of the person.
My opinion is that the reason that so many years people cannot make AI is because they want to make this two parts together. I think that it will be much easier if you make only Intelligence without education and after that to put the education inside by teaching of the AI. Actually this is the main point in my article.