A piece of "natural" diamond is unreasonably valuable and precious on the market. It costs a lot to idiots who are after materialistic girls!
To me a piece of artifical diamond is also a piece of genuine diamond in terms of chemical composition and hardness against abrasion in nature but it is much cheaper.
Both are the same to me but not to the girls. Why? Who should be more right, me or those girls?
Back to artificial intelligence:
(1) Is it the same problem as " a white horse is NOT a horse"? "Highly autonomous is NOT autonomous"?
(2) In other words, is "artificial intelligence" intelligence?
Think about artificial diamond and white horse, will you think in line with those girls or me?
(3) Can intelligence be graded as if there are recognizable levels?
If so, low level intelligence is still intelligence.
(4) And if low level intelligence includes "intelligence WITHOUT autonomous free will" like a puppy being pulled around at its master's free will (NEVER its own free will) then artifical intelligence WITHOUT free will can also be regarded as "intelligence".
(5) And according to the above reasoning, we do not need to be omnipotent in order to create "intelligence" if we can accept that "free will" is not the essence for qualifying intelligence.
(6) If we insist on the essential free will as the essence without which there is no intelligence, there will be another question:
"How much free will is free will"?
This will become another never-ending inductive process...
(7) Afterall, is there real free will? How to define 100% free will?
(8) Therefore to end the paradoxical inductive mysteries, we should follow the pragmatic attitude of Deng Xiao Ping: "Black cat or white cat does not matter as long as it can catch rats"
(9) In other words, "artifical intelligence or natural intelligence does not matter as long as it works."
Whether it may work or not depends on context/ situation.
Just like the case with artifical diamond.
It works with non-materialistic girls but NOT those materialistic types.
(10) Therefore an idiot or a nut is still intelligent to his (her) mother who loves him (her).
(11) Therefore it is always the subject to decide or accept whether a person or a computer is intelligent or not, NOT the object person or computer to self-claim or to be pre-labelled intelligent or not by a Third party.
(12) That explains why "God" is either dead or dumb to Nietzsche or atheists because "God" (if He is there) is always an object so to speak in all conversations in human's reality. When theists say "God says...", they can appear only as God's agents/ spokesmen and they always play the role as subjects, NOT God Himself.
(13) Therefore when you find someone who say "God is silly", please don't hate them. Likewise when you find someone who say "God is omnipresent, omnipotent, the fountain of intelligence, meaning of wisdom....", please need not laugh at them. Both do not really know what they are talking about. Neither am I to anyone.
(14) Intelligence is like any concept. To be explained there is always a maze. That explains why we come up with the word: "amazing".
自由意志在智能之上,智能是自由意志實踐上的其中一項工具而已.就講人好了,不論智能也好,才能也好,當然都可以擁有,但不同時代表可以自由發揮.很多時人類智能都被禁止發揮.有時人比電腦還可憐得多.問問共產黨,他們就清楚得多了.
回覆刪除自由意志是哲學家的最佳創作，有强化了人類的價值的作用，看來與智能是兩種東西。以目前來看，人類應該是害怕科技產品有自由意志，成為不受控制的怪物，但這也是科學希望挑戰的境界。
回覆刪除A piece of "natural" diamond is unreasonably valuable and precious on the market. It costs a lot to idiots who are after materialistic girls!
回覆刪除To me a piece of artifical diamond is also a piece of genuine diamond in terms of chemical composition and hardness against abrasion in nature but it is much cheaper.
Both are the same to me but not to the girls. Why? Who should be more right, me or those girls?
Back to artificial intelligence:
(1) Is it the same problem as " a white horse is NOT a horse"? "Highly autonomous is NOT autonomous"?
(2) In other words, is "artificial intelligence" intelligence?
Think about artificial diamond and white horse, will you think in line with those girls or me?
(3) Can intelligence be graded as if there are recognizable levels?
If so, low level intelligence is still intelligence.
(4) And if low level intelligence includes "intelligence WITHOUT autonomous free will" like a puppy being pulled around at its master's free will (NEVER its own free will) then artifical intelligence WITHOUT free will can also be regarded as "intelligence".
(5) And according to the above reasoning, we do not need to be omnipotent in order to create "intelligence" if we can accept that "free will" is not the essence for qualifying intelligence.
(6) If we insist on the essential free will as the essence without which there is no intelligence, there will be another question:
"How much free will is free will"?
This will become another never-ending inductive process...
(7) Afterall, is there real free will? How to define 100% free will?
(8) Therefore to end the paradoxical inductive mysteries, we should follow the pragmatic attitude of Deng Xiao Ping: "Black cat or white cat does not matter as long as it can catch rats"
(9) In other words, "artifical intelligence or natural intelligence does not matter as long as it works."
Whether it may work or not depends on context/ situation.
Just like the case with artifical diamond.
It works with non-materialistic girls but NOT those materialistic types.
(10) Therefore an idiot or a nut is still intelligent to his (her) mother who loves him (her).
(11) Therefore it is always the subject to decide or accept whether a person or a computer is intelligent or not, NOT the object person or computer to self-claim or to be pre-labelled intelligent or not by a Third party.
(12) That explains why "God" is either dead or dumb to Nietzsche or atheists because "God" (if He is there) is always an object so to speak in all conversations in human's reality. When theists say "God says...", they can appear only as God's agents/ spokesmen and they always play the role as subjects, NOT God Himself.
(13) Therefore when you find someone who say "God is silly", please don't hate them. Likewise when you find someone who say "God is omnipresent, omnipotent, the fountain of intelligence, meaning of wisdom....", please need not laugh at them. Both do not really know what they are talking about. Neither am I to anyone.
(14) Intelligence is like any concept. To be explained there is always a maze. That explains why we come up with the word: "amazing".
Kant's "Thing in Itself".
回覆刪除與作者作短暫交談後，希望作出以下補充。
回覆刪除人工智能程式的設計，基本上是根據一般邏輯編寫，能比較高級的程式，是會加入記憶系統，例如，一般搜尋器時(如Google, Yahoo)，熱門話題是會優先出現。設計是程式設計員預設的，但設計員是不會完全可以預計結果。再例如棋王與電腦比賽，程式設計員的棋藝是不會比棋王高，但由於程式分析了前X步，及預計後X步，加上沒有疲勞 (據資料所知，棋王是因為疲勞而輸)，所以可以戰勝棋王。
理論上，這過程是一般人的思想方式，但問題可能要問：這是否可以用意志來表達，而這意志是否自由。
Just found a interest articles to share with (regarding the case cited in my reply)
回覆刪除http://www.iheima.com/html/2012/cxzc_1104/3907.html