[ExI] Schrodinger Bacterium

William Flynn Wallace foozler83 at gmail.com
Wed Oct 31 01:32:42 UTC 2018

they're going to need a good theory on intelligence, I'm much more
interested in that.

John K Clark

If you are talking about human intelligence, then you are out of luck.
Debates lasting centuries have not resolved the problem.  Modest agreement
at the abstract level.  But....

If intelligence is an ability to do many things well, then IQ is your boy.
No test better.   Correlates with more important tasks better than anything
invented so far.  So intelligence is what intelligence tests test.

So the ability to do well at tasks  is proven.  What do you need a theory
for?  To deduce hypotheses aimed at showing that IQ will be a good
predictor of X?  Been done tens of thousands of times and we know what IQ
will and won't do for us.  Amazing, isn't it, that the plain old IQ test is
still around and top dog?

Maybe what you want is analyses of the skills needed for all those tasks
that IQ correlates with.  Factor analyze everything.  Done thousands of
times.  Needs to be done tens of thousands of times.

Nonpsychologists are always trying to get more facts and details out of
psychology than we can offer now.  Probably a problem in every field.
Psychologists and other scientists are working on it.  Money will make it
go faster.

If you are talking about AI, then never mind.  But if an AI is capable of
doing things like a human mind would, if that mind could go high speed, is
it a given that that is the only intelligence an AI needs?  Maybe the AI
needs a different kind of intelligence to do its job, and can use the human
intelligence portion of itself as a comparison.

It will tell you:  'This is the solution the way we think, and here is the
solution they way you think.'   Wouldn't that be great if it could be
accomplished?  Would we then attempt to make human brains work like the
AI's brain, only slower?  Depends on the comparisons:  if the AI's solution
works better on average, then note how close or far human intelligence's
solutions are from it, and on  what problems the AI does better, and what
humans do better, and you have good divisions of labor and perhaps way to
make both better.  The question will be:  will humans have any place in
making the world a better place if AIs have been improved to the max?

But how will we know it's better?  What's the criterion?  If something
works it doesn't always mean that some other solution isn't even better.
And what you need for that is...........more data.

We all knew that science was going to be endless, didn't we.

bill w

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 6:41 PM John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 7:06 PM Stuart LaForge <avant at sollegro.com> wrote:
> *> Interesting. So does this mean you are quantum biology convert? *
> Chemistry is the foundation of biology and quantum mechanics is the
> foundation of chemistry.
>> *> This is pretty clear evidence that photosynthesis is a quantum
>> phenomenon. Might not respiration and consciousness be as well?*
> Before anybody has a theory on consciousness, quantum or otherwise,
>  they're going to need a good theory on intelligence, I'm much more
> interested in that.
> John K Clark
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20181030/dae6b950/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list