Re: [sl4] Factors of intelligence

From: Joost Rekveld (
Date: Sun Mar 01 2009 - 13:15:34 MST

My two cents:

I think the trouble with the word 'intelligence' (like
'consciousness' and 'life') are that most of the connotations it has
are anthropocentric. This reminds me of this great quote by

"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting
than the question of whether a submarine can swim."

So what do mean when we want to make a machine that is 'intelligent' ?
If it is not like us it can not be intelligent, if it is like us,
there's no use to make a machine, you can better make love instead.

There was a suggestion earlier on to treat 'evolutionary fitness' as
a measure of intelligence. 'Fitness' is not straightforward at all
either, i'm personally not too sure what it really means to talk
about the 'fitness' of something, and at least fitness is always
relative to a specific environment. And it does not apply to rocks
either, although the idea of an 'evolutionary fitness' of rocks would
be a very poetic one: we see ourselves as the climax of evolution (so
far), but perhaps all these rocks on earth are so fit and perfect
that they never had the need to evolve in the first place ?

anyway, some random thoughts,


On 27 Feb, 2009, at 4:54 PM, Vladimir Nesov wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Roko Mijic <>
> wrote:
>> Shane Legg and Marcus Hutter have done this:
> Not really. You can't meaningfully state and resolve questions of
> rock/cat intelligence with the help of Hutter/Legg theory. Maybe you
> can plug some algorithmic information theory based subroutine in such
> process, but there are still too many absent parts.
> --
> Vladimir Nesov


                                      Joost Rekveld


“You are in the nets of the horizon like fish !
We, suprematists, we throw you a road.
Hurry up !
Because tomorrow you will not recognize us.”


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:04 MDT