Consciousness and Intelligence

[fhunter]

The Eliza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA) program was a rather simple program that simulated a therapist.

Thank you for answering... There were more advanced programs, which were capable of learning (like russian "Diala"), but principles were mostly the same.

And of course, computers can emulate what ever we want them to emulate. Even irrational behaviour. This is the essence of computers - the do what we want them to do.

So let's take some mind experiment - let's take big enought neural network (modelled on computer), give it virtual world and inputs and outputs to examine and interact with this world. What will we get after some time?

I say mind experiment, cause computational power required to do this resonably quick are not available to me. And all this - not counting time to program this.

[erikboy (imported)]

I am speaking for myself, but I think I have seen the same in a lot of other people. I built my own walls when I was younger. Those walls in part determined the profession I chose. I will use another person as an example. I was in Toastmasters with an auto mechanic. He is an intelligent person but shy around people. So what job did he pick. If you think a minute, a good mechanic is a very smart person. In his case, he also was shy around people. Being a mechanic fit perfectly. There was the intellectual challenge of figuring out the problem without having to deal with people. As he got older he, like me, realized that he was limiting himself by the wall he had built around himself and he, like me, chose to join Toastmasters to tear down that wall. I would call that free will because it can work and open up whole new experiences if you make the decision for yourself.

You, I think, kind of touched on points like that and I agree on those. I am only arguing the big picture.

What you describe here is called emotional intelligence. It is measured in EQ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence

Emotional intelligence is very important thing. you need to know how you react, what are your emotions and you need to know how to overcome restrictions that your emotions could create if handled wrong.

I think that people with higher EQ are making more true choices.

IQ is littlebit different thing. It is interesting to know that every following generation has littlebit higher average IQ level than previous generation had. So, kids get smarter and smarter, as their starting position is getting better and better... I wonder where is the limit!

E.

[erikboy (imported)]

So let's take some mind experiment - let's take big enought neural network (modelled on computer), give it virtual world and inputs and outputs to examine and interact with this world. What will we get after some time?

I say mind experiment, cause computational power required to do this resonably quick are not available to me. And all this - not counting time to program this.

Then you limit inputs and outputs of each neural network and connect them to a bigger network tha creates environment for them with rules that they percieve as nature....

This experiment remind me MATRIX

But matrix has limited computational power and can not spread.

Is there a desire to live for these neural networks? Or does it evolve by itself?

E.

[fhunter]

I thought more of some chapters from Lem's book "Sum of Technologies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_Technologiae)" (1967). The ones about virtual reality and creation of the worlds.

But comparision with MATRIX will work too.

You can create a dynamically expandable computational system. At least such software exists.

I once tried to connect few old computers in the university to make one big virtual computer, which will be expandable, as new nodes connect, but I failed... probably haven't read the manual for software thoroughly enough :).

As for limited computational power - I thought, that such simulation can be spread to many machines. The only problem is to keep everything in sync.

I think, that described networks should evolve for themselves. But I haven't tried to program this.

[erikboy (imported)]

This is an interesting thread.

Do we know that dog knows that he is a dog?

In computers we use variables as a form of data that can be filled with certain values that have some meaning that has been agreed on previously.

variable temperature is defined between ranges -273 C to lets say 5000000C

I have watched my own thinking process. Sometimes when I come to a conclusion, the result of thinking process might have no name, it is not placed into any category yet, but it already has the meaning. Meaning for me. And I already can use this meaning either for use in further thinking or use that meaning in taking action.

Only later I will find a word to that meaning and some scale of values of that specific variable that I just invented. which helps other to use products of my thinking process much easier.

So thought was first, then it was attached with other things like category, range and word. Not vice versa.

Thinking process is a source of our intelligence.

Is conciousness needed for thinking process? I feel it is a must!

E.

[jemagirl (imported)]

This is an interesting thread.

Do we know that dog knows that he is a dog?

Well there are dogs and then there are dogs. Some Dogs grow up more or less wild as feral animals. They often run in packs and revert to a very wolf like state of being with all of the hierarchical social structures you would find in any wolf pack. I see these dogs as having a very strong K9 identity. In my opinion they know they are dogs.

Then there are the dogs socialized by people. To me it is not clear they see themselves as dogs. I believe they still have many of the pack instincts of wild dogs though and this is what makes them such great companions. They definitely have a sense of self, but do they identify as dogs or people? I don't know, but they do seem to be self aware.

[Blaise (imported)]

I think of consciousness as our tendency to think that we are aware when we made decisions. I think that maybe we make decisions and then become aware that he have made them. If that is the case, then consciousness may be an illusion.

[A-1 (imported)]

An interesting discussion, which occurs quite regularly here.

In my humble opinion this concept of consciousness and intelligence boils down to a sort of simple concept.

That concept was originally called, "The Ghost in the Machine" . This argument was first proposed by Gilbert Ryle in response to Rene' Descarte' description of mind-body dualism .

More simply put, consciousness and intelligence has connotations of soul or spirit, if you will. The implication is that we are more than the sum of our parts and that therefore there is no point where we become 'aware', but that rather the process is a gradual one that becomes complicated as the structure becomes complicated.

A Modernist philiospher would argue that no thing in existance can amount to more than the sum of its parts. In other words, consciousness and intelligence can be explained by the physical attributes and design of the entity in question, and all such concepts as soul, spirit,

intelligence and consciousness

is therefore a product of the observation of function.

On the other hand a post-Modernist would argue that such concepts as consciousness and intelligence are the product of something else at work and that we can be more than the sum of our parts for a plethora of reasons, mostly depending on environmental interactions, concepts, contest and social structures.

I am of the opinion that whatever works and yields the best results for you in your life is a fine philosophy to embrace. But first let me give you an exapmple of how I think.

An optimist might say that the glass is half full.

A pessimist might argue that the glass is half empty.

I would simply exclaim that the container is too large.

So there you have it. Logic dictates that this arguement is insoluable at our present knowledge level and therfore speculatory. Both standpoints are equally valid and will allow one to live a full and productive life, unless the arguements are taken to extremes.

However, I might add that religion when taken in small doses is quite beneficial, however, O.D.-ing on it will justify forsaking all opportunity in this life for hopes of the next life.

Furthermore, living one's life from a purely scientific standpoint, without appreciating the beauty of everything and the much greater beauty that exists in all living things, even the ones that one must make an honest effort to avoid, makes life ring hollow and implies that nothing, us, them, nothing, is better off for us having experienced life and for us having tried to better it.

...either of those, my friends, is a cop out and an act of a coward.

[Blaise (imported)]

An interesting discussion, which occurs quite regularly here.

In my humble opinion this concept of consciousness and intelligence boils down to a sort of simple concept.

That concept was originally called, "The Ghost in the Machine" . This argument was first proposed by Gilbert Ryle in response to Rene' Descarte' description of mind-body dualism .

More simply put, consciousness and intelligence has connotations of soul or spirit, if you will. The implication is that we are more than the sum of our parts and that therefore there is no point where we become 'aware', but that rather the process is a gradual one that becomes complicated as the structure becomes complicated.

A Modernist philiospher would argue that no thing in existance can amount to more than the sum of its parts. In other words, consciousness and intelligence can be explained by the physical attributes and design of the entity in question, and all such concepts as soul, spirit, [

quote="jemagirl (imported)" t

ime=1217822940]
intelligence and consciousness

is therefore a product of the observation of function.

On the other hand a post-Modernist would argue that such concepts as consciousness and intelligence are the product of something else at work and that we can be more than the sum of our parts for a plethora of reasons, mostly depending on environmental interactions, concepts, contest and social structures.

I am of the opinion that whatever works and yields the best results for you in your life is a fine philosophy to embrace. But first let me give you an exapmple of how I think.

An optimist might say that the glass is half full.

A pessimist might argue that the glass is half empty.

I would simply exclaim that the container is too large.

So there you have it. Logic dictates that this arguement is insoluable at our present knowledge level and therfore speculatory. Both standpoints are equally valid and will allow one to live a full and productive life, unless the arguements are taken to extremes.

However, I might add that religion when taken in small doses is quite beneficial, however, O.D.-ing on it will justify forsaking all opportunity in this life for hopes of the next life.

Furthermore, living one's life from a purely scientific standpoint, without appreciating the beauty of everything and the much greater beauty that exists in all living things, even the ones that one must make an honest effort to avoid, makes life ring hollow and implies that nothing, us, them, nothing, is better off for us having experienced life and for us having tried to better it.

...either of tho
[/quote]
se, my friends, is a cop out and an act of a coward.



I think that I have a first edition of the Ryle book. I first read it when I was twenty. It did not make much sense to me then and it makes less sense now. It was an expression of behaviourism and I think behaviourism has not held well in the past 50 years. But, essentially, Ryle is right about Descartes. Consciousness is not the ghost in the machine. Nice post, thanks.

[Beau Geste (imported)]

There were more posts on this message board, regarding the subject, than on any of the others. Maybe an interest in orchiectomy has more to do with the mind than with the genitourinary system.

A couple of things which were interesting, which were mentioned on other message boards. There was one discussion about idiot savants--a number of people didn't regard their feats as evidence of intelligence. (?!)

Also, one interesting example which was pointed out, was the situation where someone is driving down a highway, then is distracted (typically by a wireless phone.) He stops paying attention to his driving, yet usually continues driving without going out of his lane or having an accident. Is he still driving intelligently, or is it just conditioning? Hard to decide.