Ai Forums Home Welcome Guest    Sunday, November 23, 2014
Ai Site > Ai Forums > Language Mind and Consciousness > "Intelligence is Self Teaching" Nature, AI, ... Last PostsLoginRegisterWhy Register
Topic: "Intelligence is Self Teaching" Nature, AI, and Ayahuasca

Dreams of Demetrius
posted 3/10/2010  21:00Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Hello, I am very intrigued to stumble upon this community, and wanted to see if I could find some stimulating anti-thesis to a topic very close and personal to me right now.

In a nutshell, I wrote an Article on Reality Sandwich.com which I reveal insight into 'intelligence' from a series of profound experiences with Ayahuasca. I propose I may have been given insight into a 'perfect' definition of intelligence itself that is equal in both the fields of biology, psychology, and potentially even AI and mathematics.

"Intelligence is Self Teaching"

The article is a short and quick read, and hoping interesting. Would love to see how it holds up under more scrupulous deconstruction from my AI chums here on this forum.

http://www.realitysandwich.com/intelligence_self_teaching

 Intelligence is Self Teaching.

tkorrovi
posted 3/11/2010  14:38Send e-mail to userReply with quote
I don't think this phrase defines intelligence, as there are many different ways to learn, even very primitive systems are capable of some. But learning is a very important ability, no doubt. Most generally, learning is a way to adapt to environment and to achieve harmony with the environment. It is very difficult to find any clear distinction between learning and a mere adaptation, it is in a lot the same process. Self-development is necessary for some adaptation, and perhaps to some extent every self-developing system can adapt. The systems more capable to adapt supposed to actively explore their environment in order to achieve more harmony with it.

What does your nick mean? Dreams of what Demetrius? Knowingly, all Demetrius'es were kings, which one did you mean?

 Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
Last edited by tkorrovi @ 3/11/2010 2:55:00 PM

Dreams of Demetrius
posted 3/11/2010  16:54Send e-mail to userReply with quote
 
tkorrovi wrote @ 3/11/2010 2:38:00 PM:
I don't think this phrase defines intelligence, as there are many different ways to learn, even very primitive systems are capable of some. But learning is a very important ability, no doubt. Most generally, learning is a way to adapt to environment and to achieve harmony with the environment.

 
Thank you for your reply - and I want to see it more how you see it, but if I go on your language as it reads to me, it seems like you are supporting the phrase itself rather than contradicting it, unless I am missing something. Clearly all learning is comparable to self teaching. I do agree that it must be hard to make a distinction between simple adaption and learning - learning seems to store information in some sense where as adaption is just reacting to environmental pressures.

Ahh, as for the name, well it was meant to be playful, did not think it would even come up. In the name DeMeTrius - the letters DMT are highlighted, as DMT is the molecule in our brains, and in ayahuasca, that is responsible for such experiences as dreams and visions.


yaki
posted 3/11/2010  17:13Send e-mail to userReply with quote
The proposed definition of intelligence is indeed original. The term "self teaching" was not previously widely used to explain the meaning of this elusive term. However, does this new articulation really make a difference? It has been said many times in many ways, that intelligence is an ability to learn from experience. So what does the "self" prefix really add? The "self" (learning entity) is always there, and it is never alone - there is always some "teaching other".

So, the question arises - does this "new definition" really change anything? What difference does it make? It seems to me that it leaves things exactly where they were, without adding any significant insight into the nature of intelligence.


Dreams of Demetrius
posted 3/11/2010  17:23Send e-mail to userReply with quote
 
yaki wrote @ 3/11/2010 5:13:00 PM:
However, does this new articulation really make a difference? It has been said many times in many ways, that intelligence is an ability to learn from experience. So what does the "self" prefix really add? The "self" (learning entity) is always there, and it is never alone - there is always some "teaching other".

S

 
thank you Yaki, for your insight here. I have thought about the 'teaching other'. I think it is important to distinguish 'teaching other' from 'programming other'. Not meaning to sound cheeky, but even to learn from another is, or can be understood, as an adaption of 'self teaching'. a 'learning entity' must seek query, it must be in a state of seeking query, for it to learn something from an other. If not, it's just being programmed, like a computer, and if it was static, then all children indeed would simply share the same level of intelligence as their teachers, which clearly they do not.

As for it 'adding' anything new, well that is what I am currently seeking to find out. If all intelligent systems, simple and complex, share 'self teaching' in common, in any possible phrase or term used to express 'self teaching', then how is intelligence still difficult to define? Or to rephrase the question, what does the phrase "self teaching" leave out in terms of defining intelligence proper?

thank you once again!


toborman
posted 3/15/2010  07:45Send e-mail to userReply with quote
 
Dreams of Demetrius wrote @ 3/11/2010 5:23:00 PM:

Or to rephrase the question, what does the phrase "self teaching" leave out in terms of defining intelligence proper?


 
Good question.
Self teaching is not a definition. It is just a term which you are using as an alias for the word intelligence.
Intelligence is a property of the mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn.

 human mind map

Dreams of Demetrius
posted 3/15/2010  08:21Send e-mail to userReply with quote
 
toborman wrote @ 3/15/2010 7:45:00 AM:
Good question.
Self teaching is not a definition. It is just a term which you are using as an alias for the word intelligence.
Intelligence is a property of the mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn.

 
Hmmm, not sure I see this quite yet how you do, hopefully you are willing to spend a little more time with me until I get it.

I can see how it could be an incomplete or failed definition, but I do not see how it is not a definition, simply because it has such a clear logical operator, x=y, and to me your saying it's really just x=x. It's tautological, is that what you mean?

And I get more confused when I read what you say encapsulates intelligence, is not 'self teaching' the reoccurring process in all of those things mentioned?

Also, the phrase is not fully defined, such as 'self'. I get the impression from many respondents that it solely refers to education or learning in some scholastic sense, or simply solely rational queries.

Someone else on a recent discussion forum put it nicely, when he said "Intelligence is Self Teaching like the Ouroboros is self eating". This phrase may have more intuitive appeal than logical, so help me out here if you do not mind, I would deeply appreciate your insight into the matter.

Last edited by Dreams of Demetrius @ 3/15/2010 8:25:00 AM

toborman
posted 3/16/2010  05:56Send e-mail to userReply with quote
 
Dreams of Demetrius wrote @ 3/15/2010 8:21:00 AM:

I can see how it could be an incomplete or failed definition, but I do not see how it is not a definition, simply because it has such a clear logical operator, x=y, and to me your saying it's really just x=x. It's tautological, is that what you mean?

And I get more confused when I read what you say encapsulates intelligence, is not 'self teaching' the reoccurring process in all of those things mentioned?

Also, the phrase is not fully defined, such as 'self'. I get the impression from many respondents that it solely refers to education or learning in some scholastic sense, or simply solely rational queries.


 
Thanks for being patient with my terse expressions.

I’ll agree that self-teaching is an incomplete and vague definition rather than a tautological expression. Maybe it’s my interpretation of self-teaching that is different than yours.

If teaching means the process of a teacher recalling information from his memory and imparting that information to a student (learner), and learning is the student receiving and remembering (storing in memory) the information, and if the teacher is the self and the student is the self, then self-teaching means a self-teaching agent needs only to recall what it already knows and remember it. This process doesn’t require the capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, or to use language.

I’m sure this is not what you intend by the term self-teaching.


 human mind map

Eddy Adams
posted 6/18/2010  09:21Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Hi I,m a nubee here.
self teaching sounds like a simple metacognitive formula.
Intelligence sounds too anthropomorphic a comparision.
I wonder !
How would a machine see us in their image.



Rexmyshrads
posted 9/13/2010  09:03Send e-mail to userReply with quote
"Intelligence is self teaching" The question is WHY?
Well I try and "reflect on myself" the reason "it feels good" when I finally "GET" something.
Look at what I just said,reflection or self analysis is critical to the building of the things I have learned, but knowledge itself is just fact or fiction like 1 or 0
You can build a mental database but whats the point?
Well the point is that it "feels" good to learn something. People wouldn't seek knowledge if they didn't have the desire to. where does desire come from?
The feeling you got the last time you learned something. why did you get that feeling? What is a feeling? what makes it a good or a bad feeling? Emotional rules play a big part in the psychology of any living thing. Even though you may not see it obviously and pass it off as instinct, instinct is reinforced by a type of desire and desire is an emotional rule.
I read an article (link below) in scientific American magazine about psychopaths and they discovered that a disorder in the brain causes them to feel no emotion this results in behavior that is completely focused, narrow, and without empathy in fact pain is even subdued. This is because the desire to not feel pain is gone. Sounds kinda like a chat program to me, the way you cant have a meaningful conversation with it.
The point is that emotional rule sets are a large but not 100% reason of why intelligence is self teaching.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=inside-the-mind-of-a-psychopath


 mind of a psychopath

RobiK
posted 1/23/2011  07:41Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Great concept. To avoid wasting time coloring a black and white question; what is your stance on the different "types of intelligence"? How do you define the difference between Knowledge and Wisdom, and where do you put intelligence on the shelf with them? Are you looking at intelligence as a verb or a noun? Do you consider a Savant intelligent?
Without your response; If lies didn’t exist yes. However, if intelligence as a verb it is something put into action, but what is being put into action? One's ability to consider seems to interfere with your definition. Self teaching doesn't necessarily lead to intelligence, nor does it imply the “teacher’s guide” one uses to “self teach”, was not purchased with 100 Dum-Dum wrappers, a warm fuzzy, and a self addressed stamped envelope. I don't know about you, but I know too many sane, but self destructive types, who teach themselves to reach more amazing levels of rediculosity every day. What a person considers in making their choices/conclusions defines their outcomes. Was it Einstein who said the definition of insanity is repeating the same mistakes, expecting a different outcome?



eloboostlolfg
posted 8/20/2014  09:48Send e-mail to userReply with quote
For this you think that I agree, I also think so, we are the same.


______________________________________________
[url=http://www.eloboostlol.com/]elo boost[/url]

  1  
'Send Send email to user    Reply with quote Reply with quote    Edit message Edit message

Forums Home    The Artificial Intelligence Forum    Hal and other child machines    Alan and other chatbots  
Contact Us Terms of Use