Now, we have silicon-based artificial quasi-intelligent mechanisms (the internet, robots, computers, phones, machines, etc, etc) — BrianW
What exactly does quasi-intelligent mean? — fishfry
We refer to the organisation of the universe as intelligent; we refer to how components are organised into computer functionality as intelligent; we refer to a sports team as having an intelligent game when their organised activity yields positive results, etc, etc. Basically, intelligence for us is dependent on organisation and utility. I refer to computers and such as quasi-intelligent because their organised activity and utility is not inherently theirs even though they reflect/manifest it. — BrianW
Well sure, by that definition my chair is intelligent — fishfry
I don't regard that as helpful in the debate about machine intelligence, since you just defined machines as intelligent. — fishfry
But what have we actually learned by this? — fishfry
I'm not a chemistry expert but I think for a substance to base life on it requires some conditions e.g. how many bonds it can hold, the environment it is in, it's flexibility in bond forming with other substances, etc. — TheMadFool
That's what I'm trying to figure out but from a much abstract perspective. I'm wondering, what have the conditions of carbon to do with our intelligence? And, what is so phenomenal about carbon that some other elements could not achieve in their own specialised conditions (in other worlds)? For example, if you look into what scientists show us about Titan (Saturn's Moon), it's every bit as our earth. But it's different in many other ways despite the resemblance. So, I'm thinking, in terms of atoms and sub-atomic particles there may not be that much of a deviation in structure than we have already observed here on Earth. Therefore, if that other cosmic globe could mirror ours that closely and still maintain a certain level of distinctness using roughly the same materials (atoms and such) as we find here on Earth, what other phenomena out there, much more closely related to us (humans) could we be missing on? — BrianW
We define part of the living to be intelligent. As what we know to be living is carbon based, we have this assumption all living is carbon based. We might be wrong, but we simply have then to have the counter example that shows the assumption to be false.We classify ourselves as carbon-based intelligent beings. — BrianW
Sure it is. It is defined by the configuration of certain elements (like neurons) and our behavior.We classify ourselves as carbon-based intelligent beings. However, our intelligence isn't defined in any of the elements that compose our being-ness.Our intelligence is not defined in our atoms, molecules, compounds, etc, etc. — BrianW
It wasn't just "dirt". There was the radiation from the sun and the energy supplied by the core of the Earth and its weather and it was a particular mix of complex compounds, more complex than the dirt in your backyard.So, basically, the dirt (earth) we consider to be non-intelligent has, through no capability of its own, developed intelligent beings. It's like evolution just happened to it... and kept on happening. (How coincidental!) — BrianW
If we can argue that silicon-based or any other non-carbon based life exists and regard it as intelligent, then what does that say about the types of elements that can be defined as being intelligent? Our computers could be defined as intelligent (and often are), based on the configuration of the components and their behavior. Intelligence comes in degrees and is proportional to the complexity of the configuration which allows for more adaptive behaviors.Now, we have silicon-based artificial quasi-intelligent mechanisms (the internet, robots, computers, phones, machines, etc, etc). Considering the amount of dirt in space (planets, satelites and others) is rumoured to surpass those in this planet, perhaps it is possible, maybe even probable, that in at least one of those, there are silicon-based natural occurring intelligent beings, given that we have somewhat proven that intelligence and silicon combinations can work together.
Also, given that the level of dexterity seen in nature far surpasses that of humans (by a lot), isn't it possible, maybe even probable, that nature could have made silicon-based intelligent beings somewhere and that our attempts at replicating intelligence are born of intuition or a sense of recognition of some qualities in nature which mirror such capabilities? — BrianW
Also, aren't we machines in essence? — TheMadFool
It could be that we are the natural evolutionary step for the evolution of silicon-based life forms that will eventually take over the universe. — Harry Hindu
Or, better yet, if our (human) intelligence is what operates machines and stuff, what is so artificial about it that we should conjure the term Artificial Intelligence? — BrianW
Part of the implications is that AI which we seem to be in the process of perfecting, could turn out to be every bit as naturally intelligent as we (humans) are. — BrianW
See, that's another strong argument in favour of silicon or other element based intelligent mechanisms and beings. — BrianW
We need new physics and a new theory of computation before we can make progress on this mystery. — fishfry
We're going to have to go beyond the Turing machine. — fishfry
I hope we can do it - build an AI. I'm a bit worried about how they'll treat it though - imprisonment for life probably. — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.