Re: Technical Animism

On Dec 4, 8:05 pm, Jan Burse <janbu...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John Jones schrieb:





On Dec 4, 12:46�pm, Tommi H�yn�l�nmaa <tommi.hoynalan...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Tommi H�yn�l�nmaa kirjoitti:

John Jones kirjoitti:
But with that definition, a structure is complex enough only if it is
intelligent, and is intelligent only if it is complex enough...
Just wrong words. Of course, all complex systems are not intelligent.
Some complex systems can develop intelligence. This is related to
transformation of quantity into quality (or to emergence).

--
Tommi H�yn�l�nmaa
s�hk�posti / e-mail: tommi.hoynalan...@xxxxxxxxxxxx
kotisivu / homepage:http://www.iki.fi/tohoyn/

This only displaces the problem of how to identify intelligent
properties in structures. I now have to look for emergent properties
in structures. I have no conceivable means of accomplishing either
task, nor even of identifying it as a bona fide task.

You can compare a system without intelligence/emergence with a
system with intelligence/emergence (substance) versus their the
performance of a certain task (accidence). (see pears/apples thread)

Intelligence/emergence should help in performing this certain tasks.
Intelligence has a more central conotation of a directing instance.
Emergence has a more distributive conotation of a global property.

Nothing special about it. Anybody will be able for example to
decide between an intelligent and an unintelligent elevator. It
currently happens that I live in a building with a very
annoying elevator, it to catapult sometime directly into the 5th
floor when I want to get into the 2th floor.

But don't worry, I don't talk (yet) to the elevator.

Best Regards- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let us say that appropriate task outcomes identify intelligence.
Certain structures will give certain repeatable responses but what
tells me that they instantiate an agency called intelligence or
emergence? And if responses are not repeatable, then do structures
instantiate something else, like stupidity?
Another objection - how can we identify intelligence without falling
into circularity? If we avoid circularity and say that intelligence is
about 'appropriate' outcomes, and not about emergence, then the
definition of 'appropriate' launches us back into circularity.

I suggest that there is no definition of intelligence that can give us
a criteria of what we should be looking for to find it. I also suggest
that the term is a social conceit.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Emergence workshop
    ... Putting aside the question of whether the study of emergence is truly ... concept of emergence in complex systems while you hope that one day it ... Can you cite something of real significance that has emerged to ... things of real significance that the complex systems theory ex post ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Emergence workshop
    ... Putting aside the question of whether the study of emergence is truly ... concept of emergence in complex systems while you hope that one day it ... Can you cite something of real significance that has emerged to ... things of real significance that the complex systems theory ex post ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Technical Animism
    ... all complex systems are not intelligent. ... Emergence has a more distributive conotation of a global property. ... decide between an intelligent and an unintelligent elevator. ... floor when I want to get into the 2th floor. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Emergence workshop
    ... Putting aside the question of whether the study of emergence is truly ... kooky talk.origin characters. ... cognitive science all desperately searching for some excuse to call ... concept of emergence in complex systems while you hope that one day it ...
    (talk.origins)