hi,

On 14/12/2017 20:21, Bald Eagle wrote:
> jr <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> less sure what, though erudite, "do not disturb my circles" means here.
> Well, if we're using survival as an intelligence metric, then what do
we make of

I thought we're trying to establish, through observation, whether a
given behaviour may be seen as "intelligent".

> some grunt running Archimedes through with a sword?  Who's more
intelligent?
> Who survived?

isn't that what statistics is for?  that Archimedes thing might be an
"outlier".

(inadmissible anyway since "grunt" and Mr A were of same species)

> I think intelligence is more than that, as I may get into below, or
later, as
> time permits.

yes please.

>> the "box" is a maze.  the task is to locate the food stuff.  simples.
>>> But that also leads into my earlier points of _ability_ to exercise your
>>> intelligence in an environment vs simply being intelligent.
>> my point exactly.  to find the food at some acceptable "cost", you will
>> have to "exercise your intelligence" (unless you happen to locate the
>> food by accident).
> Well, my main point here is that there are physical attributes of a
creature
> that allow it to DO certain things that another creature may not be
able to do.

correct, however, the requirements for a maze should be simple enough to
allow both mould + human to show off their abilities on a level playing
field.

> So even though there may be a puzzle, there may be purely physical
> obstacle/challenges that have nothing to do with intelligence.
> We also haven't gotten into things like sanity, mental illness,
phobias, etc.
> I'm assuming for the sake pf present discussion we're "assuming a
spherical
> human"  ;)

"Otto Normalverbraucher", ja.

>>> jr <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:> "... conducting the
experiment, "
>>> And that's a problem right there.
>>> Scientists almost never conduct a single experiment - not in the way
you're
>>> presenting.
>> in both posts I wrote that they're commencing the second experiment.
> Right, but I meant multiple experiments in a different context.

right.  hence the re-phrasing to "research project".  I'm sure that, in
due course, the Sirians will want to perform a vivisection too.  ;-)

> For maximum differentiation / signal-to-noise ratio, you'd want to
provide ample
> access to things that would allow the creatures to apply their
intellect to
> their surroundings.
> Archimedes would surely want a lever... ;)

but in any such project surely you'd progress from simple tests like a
maze empty except for some food, to more complex ones where, perhaps,
you'd supply materials to fashion tools.

>>> If it was more of the same - stupid.
>>> If it tried new and different things, and variations on those - then
>>> intelligent.
>> can you please rewrite this wrt the maze context?
> One would assume the slime mold would just search around endlessly in it's
> oozing manner, and not do much of anything else.

ah.  but would it search a section found previously empty for a second
time?  or would it leave a (chemical) note to self not to bother?

> Since you haven't provided [m]any features to act upon, and we're
talking about
> someone who would "test well" in this scenario, I would assume they'd
try to do
> as you suggested, using hair or something to mark their progress
through the
> maze.
> One might try the "right-hand rule" and follow the walls around until
exiting
> the maze.

I know it as the left-hand rule, but, afaik, that does not work for all
mazes.

>>> Maybe put a one-way door in, and see which one props it open
(recognizes the
>>> concept of irreversibility, time, order of operations, and keeping
options open)
>> too condensed.  not sure I follow.
> A door one can open by pushing from one side, but that then closes and
cannot be
> opened from the other side.  An intelligent creature might recognize
such a
> feature and attempt to prop it open so as not to lock itself into one
> exploratory path and shut out the option of going back.
> Presumably the blob would ooze through, and that would be it.

neat, yes.  a test to include, for sure.

> There is the question of intellect relieving evolutionary pressure,
and indeed
> we have technology and food supply enabling people to lounge
aimlessly, the
> unfit to survive to reproduce, and damaging the gene pool by diluting
the fit
> genes with less fit ones.

there's another (long) discussion looming, potentially.  :-)

> This then touches on:
> short term goals "Me!" vs long term goals (humanity)
> morals, ethics and sanity (eugenics) (great CEO or psychopath?)

all alone in a vast, uncaring universe..

> AI (we're more fit, kill all humans)
> would intelligent beings create an AI given the above possible / probable
> outcome
> Lots more swirling through my head - break is over - maybe later if I
have the
> free time  :)

ok.


regards, jr.


sorry btw for clicking wrong send button.

Post a reply to this message