AI that isn't intelligent.

[Treedbear]

The brain could be described as a colony of cells forming connections and groups in order to produce something greater than its individual parts (as with ants), an intelligent system.

I think of a brain as analogous to an ecosystem in which concepts and ideas evolve or die. The individual cells largely persist. It's the way they are connected that changes. And perhaps they might also replicate as metaphors and analogies. The human brain seems to love metaphors.

 

[fromderinside]

back to greater than sum of parts again. Sheesh.

Something composed of parts is different than, not greater than, the sum of parts since when properly assembled that something is the sum of those parts.

Even more limiting parts when combined with other parts have many possible manifestations. Only of a few of those manifestations are ever exhibited when something is particularly combined into something meaning that the potential sum of parts is much more than a particular sum of parts.

More than sum of parts is merely a description of a thing being since the parts uncombined are not realizing all potential combinations. An overreach and an err when elevated to justification for the existence of something like consciousness as a fundamental force or particle since its dependence on being properly assembled from parts to be at all.

Why is whole brain function not greater than the sum of its parts? None of the parts alone are able to produce conscious experience, which is probably one of the greatest things in the World.

Its a matter of physics. Nothing is greater than the sum of parts unless the relation is misstated. A brain is part of a functioning human. Human are part of life.The physical elementary parts of the brain are also parts of stars. It's only in the instant, the time of existence, one sees the possibilities of what has compose to pass of a particular combination of parts. Comparing a universe to a brain is a no brainer.

The combination of parts are inherent in the combination properties of the parts of which the brain and the star only two examples. Water is not emergent it is the result of combining the properties of hydrogen with the properties of oxygen under specific physical constraints all of which can be computed and predicted by examining the combination possibilities of hydrogen and oxygen. The number of elements in combination don't change the determination of the computation. If one doesn't know the property possibilities one is in no position to rename the outcome or declare it's nature.

 

[DBT]

Its a matter of physics. Nothing is greater than the sum of parts unless the relation is misstated.

I don't see it that way, sorry. I don't think it's so much an issue of physics, but function. It being the variety of functions of an active brain that makes an active brain greater than its constituent parts. Greater in terms of information processing ability and conscious representation of information; experience. This being something that does not exist elsewhere in nature.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I think of a brain as analogous to an ecosystem in which concepts and ideas evolve or die. The individual cells largely persist.

It's the mind that contain ideas and concepts. Brains contain cells.

It's the way they are connected that changes. And perhaps they might also replicate as metaphors and analogies. The human brain seems to love metaphors.

I doubt very much that a brain could love metaphors but it would be nothing new that the human mind did.
EB

 

[DBT]

Mind is an aspect of an active brain.

 

[Treedbear]

I think of a brain as analogous to an ecosystem in which concepts and ideas evolve or die. The individual cells largely persist.

It's the mind that contain ideas and concepts. Brains contain cells.

I disagree. The mind doesn't contain ideas and concepts. The mind is ideas and concepts.

It's the way they are connected that changes. And perhaps they might also replicate as metaphors and analogies. The human brain seems to love metaphors.

I doubt very much that a brain could love metaphors but it would be nothing new that the human mind did.
EB

Love is itself a metaphor for how a brain fulfills its basic purpose. That is, making sense of, and thus adapting to its environment.

 

[rousseau]

Labelling humans as intelligent is a by-product of times gone by when, even if we were secular, we still thought we were the centre of the universe.

It's easy to get the impression that we actually are intelligent when one spends time on Freethought forums, but a quick survey of the global community puts that idea to rest. People probably have a small amount of cognitive capacity that other animals don't have, which makes us able to follow small logic chains, use math, and store a lot of data in our memory. This looks exceptional because the ability to do basic math and internalise causation multiplied over hundreds of thousands of years produces some exceptional technologies, but as individual people we're not too far removed from some of our closer relatives.

In reality, most of our lives are spent using cached responses when we talk to other people so we don't look like idiots and get outcast from our tribes, bouncing around trying to convince people to give us money, and trying to get laid. There are likely some very real neural components that ensure we do those things successfully. Outside of that, all of our 'thinking', 'philosophizing' and so on are just ways to pass the time. So in a sense this can be thrown back to the OP, because giving the impression that we're competent is probably more important than actually being competent. The only way to really gauge that is social performance.

Anyway, I'm not convinced that a simple AI bot in a game is in anyway different than humans themselves. A character in a game works on a set of conditionals, and so do humans. The only difference between a human and a bot, is that humans can perceive many more conditions, and they can respond in many more ways. So maybe the implication of the OP is that a human only needs to perceive a finite number of conditionals, and use a finite number of responses to be perceived as 'intelligent'.

 

[fromderinside]

I like your angle rousseau. Also one might consider the notion of creativity separately from intelligence.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Labelling humans as intelligent is a by-product of times gone by when, even if we were secular, we still thought we were the centre of the universe.

It's easy to get the impression that we actually are intelligent when one spends time on Freethought forums, but a quick survey of the global community puts that idea to rest. People probably have a small amount of cognitive capacity that other animals don't have, which makes us able to follow small logic chains, use math, and store a lot of data in our memory. This looks exceptional because the ability to do basic math and internalise causation multiplied over hundreds of thousands of years produces some exceptional technologies, but as individual people we're not too far removed from some of our closer relatives.

In reality, most of our lives are spent using cached responses when we talk to other people so we don't look like idiots and get outcast from our tribes, bouncing around trying to convince people to give us money, and trying to get laid. There are likely some very real neural components that ensure we do those things successfully. Outside of that, all of our 'thinking', 'philosophizing' and so on are just ways to pass the time. So in a sense this can be thrown back to the OP, because giving the impression that we're competent is probably more important than actually being competent. The only way to really gauge that is social performance.

Anyway, I'm not convinced that a simple AI bot in a game is in anyway different than humans themselves. A character in a game works on a set of conditionals, and so do humans. The only difference between a human and a bot, is that humans can perceive many more conditions, and they can respond in many more ways. So maybe the implication of the OP is that a human only needs to perceive a finite number of conditionals, and use a finite number of responses to be perceived as 'intelligent'.

That's why you have so many conditions in contracts that are written in small print. The banks try to make sure they know more conditions than their clients do.

Anyway, that makes logic all the more important to getting laid. That's a new insight to me.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I like your angle rousseau. Also one might consider the notion of creativity separately from intelligence.

I'm not too intelligent but I try to be very creative.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

I like your angle rousseau. Also one might consider the notion of creativity separately from intelligence.

I'm not too intelligent but I try to be very creative.
EB

Naw. Very intelligent somewhat creative are you.

 

[rousseau]

Anyone have a definition for creativity?

Something that happens because we're bored is the best I got.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Anyone have a definition for creativity?

Something that happens because we're bored is the best I got.

Sounds good to me. I think boredom is really distressing and therefore a powerful motivation to become creative.

I think creativity comes when you're feeling somehow disatisfied and you think you know enough about other people's take on things to decide that relief won't be coming from there. You're on your own (possibly together with a few other desperadoes).
EB

 

[rousseau]

Anyone have a definition for creativity?

Something that happens because we're bored is the best I got.

Sounds good to me. I think boredom is really distressing and therefore a powerful motivation to become creative.

I think creativity comes when you're feeling somehow disatisfied and you think you know enough about other people's take on things to decide that relief won't be coming from there. You're on your own (possibly together with a few other desperadoes).
EB

I forget the exact component of the brain, but one of them up there is responsible both for where we land on the extraversion spectrum, and for our tendency to 'do' things. The idea is that this component likes it's stimulation to be within a certain sweet-spot window during our waking ours. Too little and we're bored, too much and we're over-excited/fatigued.

So 'doing nothing' being boring is an intrinsic part of how our brain works. In other words, we are by default pre-disposed to seek out stimulation, like a moth is built to seek out light. This means that as people's basic needs are increasingly provided for, and they have more free time, they need to 'do' things with that time. In that vein there are two basic paradigms that I can think of off hand: creation and consumption. Our ability to create well would be dependent on the parameters inherent in our brains, but moreover creativity is just an output of using our abilities to 'do' something.

 

[rousseau]

Cortical Arousal is what I was thinking about. Counter-intuitively, introverts are more aroused than extroverts at a base level, which is why they're more sensitive to stimulation.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Anyone have a definition for creativity?

Something that happens because we're bored is the best I got.

Ooo... pick me. Pick me. My ex wife's sister was a "professor of creativity". That's a European professor. Not an American professor. At Karolinska. So one of the top universities in the world. So that's an epic title to hold. It's a branch of psychology.

Her definition was real simple. Creativity is when you combine two known concepts into a third new novel amalgam of the two. I asked her if creativity couldn't or shouldn't come from nothing. Purely from creativity. She said that there's good neurological reasons to think that it can't happen that way. The evidence certainly backs it up. The only people who think they've truly invented something out of nothing are amateurs who don't have that training to understand what they've borrowed/stolen. Creative professionals have no illusions about where their ideas come from. The interesting thing about talking with her is that she could back all this up with solid science. Really cool lady.

Anyway... that discussion left me a bit disillusioned about our Copyright industry. Because the way our brain works we've allowed corporations to own parts of our brains, that we're not allowed to express. It's kind of tragic.

 

[fromderinside]

I tend to take off from a place similar to that which Root-Bernstein described using Einstein's explanations of creativity.

Einstein On Creative Thinking: Music and the Intuitive Art of Scientific Imagination https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...-and-the-intuitive-art-scientific-imagination

Rather that constraining to music related my best sessions came in dreams where visualizations of mathematical problems came as images and image sequences. Sometimes I would have this experience while day dreaming as well. I sensed I was solving something which helped trigger recollections when I returned to the SR world where I would draw or describe in some way what I had experienced while reconsidering the problem in front of me. It doesn't hurt to be intelligent and not adhered to any system when you are creating.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yeah, I agree with all that.

I'm more easily creative on waking up (in the morning or during the night). I stay in bed and let the ideas come to me. Most of it tends to be bullshit but it's from where new ideas tend to come. I also agree with taking advantage of other people's ideas. However, I'm more generous with the creative mind because creativity is not just putting together existing concepts. "Amalgaming" is a good word because it suggests new properties. Creativity really occurs when you actually change something to the original concepts, and it's not possible without doing it if you are to have a coherent result. See for example how the concept of momentum was changed to accomodate relativity or indeed that of space-time where both the previous notions of space and of time no longer exist.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Yeah, I agree with all that.

I'm more easily creative on waking up (in the morning or during the night). I stay in bed and let the ideas come to me. Most of it tends to be bullshit but it's from where new ideas tend to come. I also agree with taking advantage of other people's ideas. However, I'm more generous with the creative mind because creativity is not just putting together existing concepts. "Amalgaming" is a good word because it suggests new properties. Creativity really occurs when you actually change something to the original concepts, and it's not possible without doing it if you are to have a coherent result. See for example how the concept of momentum was changed to accomodate relativity or indeed that of space-time where both the previous notions of space and of time no longer exist.
EB

Creativity need not be related to man's history or catalog. I agree that most of 'useful' creativity is seen from that perspective. I presented a cartoon once illustrating a creative act among nomadic stone age cartoons. One character was sitting, with others around, describing how he took strips from animal hides usually used to lass the hides together for clothing and used them instead with reeds and twigs to assemble a dwelling, tee-pee.

Sure one could claim he was extending known technology of hunting and clothing, but, the scene was in a prairie with no caves about and he was describing portable habitat for nomadic herd following rather than fixed hunter gatherer cave dwelling society. Instead of adding to he was changing concepts. I'm pretty sure the wheel, use of fire, and stone tool making, and the like were such breaks with existing concepts.

I do agree most useful creations are new departures in existing paths of knowledge. I just want to include breaks with traditions, new starting points with new concepts extending forward.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'd be less enthusiastic about the forwardness of creativity. I see it more as a poke in the dark. It's somewhat like a random jab born out of frustration. It's status is, as already suggested in this thread, similar to that of mutations. The future of a creation is mere happenstance, depending as it would on its ability to survival in a given environment. I also think that the conscious part of the creative act requires a level of preparedness at some unconscious level, which would explain why we are so happy to see our creations becoming conscious as it were. The social success of creations may also be explained by the fact that we should expect the brain of other human beings to react in a similar way to things. Once some dude finds his creation interesting and worthwile, there would be more than a fifty percent chance that other people also find it somewhat attractive, helping it spread like a meme. But at root, creativity is at least largely blind.
EB