|
 |
jr <cre### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> "how?" wasn't the right question (sorry).
>
> imagine then you're the controller/observer of two mazes, one contains a
> mould which is on its second maze, the other a human, naked no tools,
> also on their second maze. previous maze layout was different.
>
> observing their behaviour, how could you tell one is (supposedly)
> "intelligent" while the other operates on "instinct"?
Perhaps the "how" you are asking is "HOW do I design an experiment to detect
intelligence?"
In which case, I would say that the above is a poorly designed experiment.
If the "How?" is how would an intelligent being that evolved with tools and
infrastructure be able to solve a different maze better the second time, then
I'd speculate that given intellect and experience,
1. perhaps there was some attribute of the previous maze that could be exploited
to solve the second maze more quickly. This involves observation, abstraction,
and even statistical probability, and economics (cost/benefit and risk
assessment)
2. realize that the maze is a subset of 3d space. Climb up over the entrance
wall and walk around the entire maze to the exit.
3. Maybe the maze isn't static, but dynamic. Perhaps recognition that a
straight-through path opens up every so often indicates that the most efficient
solution is no to move, but to sit still and wait, and then move.
4. Perhaps the maze isn't "solid" but composed of sections that are optical
illusions.
http://labyrinth.wikia.com/wiki/Labyrinth_(film)
5. Maybe solving the maze isn't such a good idea - perhaps the ones who better
solve the maze are the ones that get weeded out by the researcher...
6. Perhaps the maze has weak points - maybe I can disassemble the maze,
move/alter the maze, or, "solving" the Gordian Knot, I break through it.
Or perhaps it's edible and I can chew through it.
7. Maybe it's an ice maze, and if I wait it'll just melt.
8. Are there controls? A sign? A diagram posted, showing the path?
so many options...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
