From: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de   
      
   On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:01:28 GMT, Kenneth P. Turvey wrote:   
      
   > On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:23:48 +0000, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:   
   >   
   >> That would probably result in nothing. The set of programs is too large   
   >> to enumerate it by brute force. Further, there is no any workable   
   >> criterion of intelligence, obviously the Turing test is unusable for   
   >> that purpose. Maybe the memory chips you have bought already contain an   
   >> intelligent program, but how could you know it? So intelligence cannot   
   >> even be stated as an optimization problem.   
   >   
   > What I was trying to get at here was more a simple description of the   
   > problem complexity.  We only know of one system with human competitive   
   > intelligence, that is humans themselves.   
      
   Actually, I would challenge that too, for the reason that we don't know   
   what is essential for being either human or intelligent. Using one   
   ill-defined thing in order to clarify another, brings nothing.   
      
   > We also have a good idea how   
   > long it took to come up with a program for these systems.   
      
   But they weren't programmed. Programming is an engineering activity, which   
   evolution (at least in theory) is not. Even if we considered the hypothesis   
   of creative design, the comparison would still be invalid because   
      
   1. the programmer teams are different   
      
   2. we have no idea how we, intelligent things, program other intelligent   
   things. We just don't, which is incidentally the whole problem...   
      
   3. even less we know about how our alleged masters did.   
      
   > Right now we   
   > have no evidence to indicate that we could do much better in developing   
   > the software for a human competitive system.  We could argue that   
   > evolution is slow, but that doesn't really put an upper bound on the   
   > complexity of the problem of developing such a program.   
      
   It certainly puts some time constraint, statistically. However that is   
   probably irrelevant as the event already happened - we call themselves   
   intelligent. A real constraint for Turing-complete systems could exist if   
   our brain used some incomputable elements.   
      
   > I have to disagree with your assessment of whether it is an optimization   
   > problem or not.  We may not have a well defined fitness function, but we   
   > certainly use one in practice.  We could spend some time interacting with   
   > a given system and rate it based on what we perceive its intelligence to   
   > be, where 100 is roughly average human intelligence.  The fact that we   
   > could participate in this exercise indicates that we do have something we   
   > are trying to optimize.   
      
   OK, that would be a Turing test. I have a problem with it, because it does   
   not confirms anything as intelligent. It rather does that the tester is not   
   enough intelligent to denounce the respondent. I.e. if this is a fitness   
   function then for another problem.   
      
   > Now, that said, I would be more comfortable if we broke into a number of   
   > dimensions and recognize that we are really trying to optimize many   
   > different things, but this is still an optimization problem.   
      
   Maybe we could state it as an optimization problem if we knew more about   
   what intelligence is, but we didn't so far. We also know nothing about the   
   complexity of the problem if stated in this form. Evolution is solving a   
   completely different problem and the best solutions found (bacteria,   
   insects etc) aren't any intelligent.   
      
   --   
   Regards,   
   Dmitry A. Kazakov   
   http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de   
      
   [ comp.ai is moderated ... your article may take a while to appear. ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)