[Fis] Theory of Meaning -> General Intell. -> Super Intell. (HELP!)

[Howard Bloom]

 Marcus, interesting points.  
Alas, I suspect that  "ontology, epistemology, [and] genomics" can't yield the kind of "intelligence" you and I want about flying monkeys.
the late barbara ehrenreich said  in  discussing an introduction she wrote for one of my books that the first thing we do in studying a hummingbird's flight is kill the hummingbird.  thus killing the very thing we want to understand.
the living force of the hummingbird is one of those "group identities" i've been nattering on about.  like a droplet or a cloud, it's an emergent identity.  an immaterial property springing from material things.  
an immaterial property orchestrating those material things and being orchestrated by them.  the way a wave passes over water and kidnaps, seduces, and recruits h2o molecules into serving its identity for a minute, then abandons them, while it travels 400 miles.  still retaining its unique personality.  a personality that is a nothing, a no-thing.
with warmth and oomph--howard

    On Monday, March 10, 2025 at 09:49:26 PM EDT, Marcus Abundis <55mrcs at gmail.com> wrote:   

 Karl – Again, thank you for your note.

Gordana – Yes, I can understand your surprise in that I have not explored ChatGPT. My foremost reason is that I am skeptical of statistical views of ‘intelligence’ – that is not how Nature works, instead requiring functional analysis. Also, in reviewing papers for ICLR 2025, I was offered a ‘trial’ ChatGPT bot for improving paper reviews. My impression was the ‘bot’ simply added a few flattering comments on my ‘good insights’, and then fed back my own views, with differently arranged but similar terms. It did inspire me to alter my review a bit to make it more ‘friendly/encouraging’ – but the essence was unchanged. Thus, I found it somewhat useful, but not radically so.

Also, I just now tried using ChatGPT’s writing: siribot.cn, Academic Assistant Pro – I gave it my paper’s abstract to see what improvements it might offer. The result was disappointing and did not even reach the level of utility I saw for the bot I used for my ICLR review. It significantly obscured the abstract, with what might be considered a ‘traditional academic’ framing. Still, I will explore a bit more before abandoning ChatGPT wholly.

My overall impression of statistical models of intelligence is that they can present countless opportunities – say for example ‘flying monkeys’ – but no matter how many times a ‘bot’ presents/writes/draws a ‘flying monkey’ it will never produce a ‘flying monkey’. The bot cannot detail the ontology, epistemology, genomics, etc. of ‘flying monkeys’, such that we ever have any actual ‘intelligence’ about flying monkeys. 

I believe such ‘statistical black-box bots’ merely extend Shannon’s ‘statistical surprise’, moving from entropically recombined discrete characters, onto recombined words, phrases, sentences, (growing in complexity), etc. until outputs finally resemble something looking like ‘intelligence’. The varied statistical (proprietary) filters one develops and uses along this extended statistical chain is the only thing making this possible, but that is not *actual* intelligence.

Jason – on your thought experiment note. This problem of useful ‘thought experiments’ is the crux of the matter. For example, how does one from 200 years ago detail today’s experience of ‘modern air travel’ and all that it entails – akin to Arthur C. Clark’s “sufficiently advanced technology indistinguishable from magic”? What you ask for goes beyond implied ‘simple tools’. Looking backward we easily see this (innovation is plainly evident), but looking forward is entirely different and defies simple description.

Karssimir – no, I was not suggesting collaboration, but suggesting your ‘definition’ could benefit from critical review here on FIS. My own interests long-ago moved onto deeper issues of intelligence (recent AI workshop submissions), beyond what you examine. For example, Howard’s note on emergence points to just one missing aspect one needs to cover in a comprehensive definition of information.
Marcus_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis at listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis 
----------
INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL

Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas 
Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
http://listas.unizar.es 
----------
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20250311/68da4b3d/attachment-0001.html>