why the non-humans will prevail

[luckyme]

As a given, there will be very intelligent, mobile non-humans on this planet. Nevermind Turing, whether they can play championship checkers, write a sonnet, fly a rocket ship or all the silly 'tests' that they either surpasse already or will.

Because they haven't evolved from instinct driven entities, they'll have one major edge on our intelligence -- they won't confuse wanting something to be true with it being true.

Oh, they'll likely have a version of emotions, in fact that may be necessary as a general motivational force just as it is for us. There is no need for the emotions to be the dominating factor or as distracting as it is for humans in decision making.

They could be kind, desire companionship, and want to enjoy a sense of acheivement without it clouding whether witches actually have special powers or whether gays caused Katrina.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
they won't confuse wanting something to be true with it being true.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand how a machine will derive a self-evident truth on its own without pre-programming.

[xwillience]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
they won't confuse wanting something to be true with it being true.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand how a machine will derive a self-evident truth on its own without pre-programming.

[/ QUOTE ]

who said anything about a machine?

[Andrew Karpinski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
they won't confuse wanting something to be true with it being true.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand how a machine will derive a self-evident truth on its own without pre-programming.

[/ QUOTE ]

who said anything about a machine?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Nevermind Turing" really indicates that the OP is talking about some sort of AI.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
they won't confuse wanting something to be true with it being true.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand how a machine will derive a self-evident truth on its own without pre-programming.

[/ QUOTE ]

All you have to do is expose a machine to sensory data that is organized in hierarchies of nodes. New information is inputed in a structural form and compared with stored structural data. Using bayesian inference techniques, the data is sorted by auto-associative properties that allow information to move up the hierachy to eventually form beliefs about causes at certain confidence rates.

Here is a much better explanation of the theory:

http://www.numenta.com/Numenta_HTM_Concepts.pdf

[Lestat]

I'm not sure this is true.

<font color="blue">Because they haven't evolved from instinct driven entities, </font>

I don'think our intelligence is derived from instinct, but more from natural selection (I believe ther is a difference.

I also don't think it's a given that machines will one day possess the type of intelligence you're talking about. For one thing, there is a limit to our own intelligence and also an inability to fully understand our own intelligence. Let alone duplicate it or build a machine to do so.

[Metric]

Do you count enhanced human intelligence as "human?"

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I don'think our intelligence is derived from instinct, but more from natural selection (I believe ther is a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure. But in our case it was instinct first ( as in earthworms and cats ;-) and the intelligence is layered on that. In other intelligent systems the layering would be different and it's possible that sufficient intelligence could occur with less override by limbic system equivalents. ( in AI, for example, there is an awareness of the need for basic motivational issues to be in play or even added-in). I'm not dealing with current AI here though.
[ QUOTE ]
I also don't think it's a given that machines will one day possess the type of intelligence you're talking about

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't need to be a machine ( and what isn't?) but it's a given if it's part of the premise for the post :-))
I don't see a limiting factor to prevent it, in the only form of intelligence we acknowledge so far it seems a matter of complex intereaction among non-magical material. Obviously we haven't witnessed what, say, a quantum based net could acheive, and we already know intelligence is acheivable by evolutionary means, why would we not see it occur in at a faster pace in a system with some assistance getting started perhaps.

My target was that certain forms of intelligence would have a huge advantage over human intelligence. At a very simplistic level, look at the advantage the next Big Blue will have over a human grand master. Doesn't lose focus, doesn't miss normal clues, doesn't get tired, and that's not the aspects I'm referring to, or the type of intelligence we'll see.

Look at some of the posts on here and see how many claims are made on a non-factual basis. Selective premises, ignoring counter evidence, etc. Simply human psychology at work. There is no reason to think non-human intelligence ( whatever level it reaches) will be held back by limbic issues.

[vhawk01]

You are right, I think. Self-preservation has served us well for thousands of years, when we lived in a world that was far more dangerous than it is today, and when we had far less sophisticated methods of dealing with adversity. It served as the most powerful (perhaps only?) motivating force for human civilization. But it certainly has its drawbacks. You all can imagine countless scenarios (just watch any ten movies) where human self-preservation instinct is at odds with rational thought, progress, morality and right action. If there were some other, far more neutral, motivating force, and human self-interest were taken out of the equation, these non-human intelligences would be far more capable of accomplishment and progress.

* I've tried not to use the word superior throughout this post. It isnt necessarily a condemnation of humanity to say that our self-preservation instinct has aligned us to different goals than we think that we want. These non-human intelligences wouldn't be 'better' in some objective way, they would simply be better suited at overcoming gaps and hurdles in our knowledge and understanding, and progress.

[_TKO_]

I do think that a less "human" species will prevail in the future. However, I'm not sure whether it would be an electrical-mechanical based entity that develops intelligence, or an intelligent entity that acquires an electrical-mechanical shell.

EDIT: It could be argued that the humans of today are less "human" that humans of thousands of years ago.

[Lestat]

I think you are assuming that intelligence is something to be strived for. I don't think it is.

I agree that our ancestors developed intelligence through means of self-preservation. But this does not mean that intelligence is the way to go (evolutionarily speaking), or that it's even an important aspect to every organism (or machine?).

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">Sure. But in our case it was instinct first ( as in earthworms and cats ;-) and the intelligence is layered on that. </font>

Please explain this further.

Our ancestors developed what is now our brand of intelligence, as a means of coping with unique spacial and other environment issues that confronted them. In other words, natural selection.

I think it's a mistake to think that every brain (or computer for that matter), strives for our unique brand of intelligence. That seems such a pompous attitude!

Just as a gazelle who is running for his life trying to avoid being eaten by a cheetah, if he would be willing to trade his speed and reflexes for our brand of intelligence that is capable of sending men to the moon and solving soduko puzzles.

Of course, there are many other (more appropriate?), examples. My point is, that intelligence is not necessarily an important trait that every organism would even want to strive for. Our brains developed it out of necessity. But other animals have brain areas that are much more developed than ours in certain areas. A bat for example, could've evolved our brand of intelligence, but using its brain for an amazingly sophisticated system to calculate sonar waves, was more important.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are assuming that intelligence is something to be strived for. I don't think it is.

I agree that our ancestors developed intelligence through means of self-preservation. But this does not mean that intelligence is the way to go (evolutionarily speaking), or that it's even an important aspect to every organism (or machine?).

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I agree totally with you. That was the purpose of my disclaimer, that I don't necessarily believe that it is somehow inherently better. I was just saying that, judging it in that context, non-human intelligence will certainly have advantages.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">Sure. But in our case it was instinct first ( as in earthworms and cats ;-) and the intelligence is layered on that. </font>

Please explain this further.

Our ancestors developed what is now our brand of intelligence, as a means of coping with unique spacial and other environment issues that confronted them. In other words, natural selection.

I think it's a mistake to think that every brain (or computer for that matter), strives for our unique brand of intelligence. That seems such a pompous attitude!

Just as a gazelle who is running for his life trying to avoid being eaten by a cheetah, if he would be willing to trade his speed and reflexes for our brand of intelligence that is capable of sending men to the moon and solving soduko puzzles.

Of course, there are many other (more appropriate?), examples. My point is, that intelligence is not necessarily an important trait that every organism would even want to strive for. Our brains developed it out of necessity. But other animals have brain areas that are much more developed than ours in certain areas. A bat for example, could've evolved our brand of intelligence, but using its brain for an amazingly sophisticated system to calculate sonar waves, was more important.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you give a slightly misleading interpretation of the course of evolution, but I don't really disagree with your main point. We developed our brand of intelligence to conquer the problems we have. But, even as dispassionately as possible, it is hard to argue that it is not simply a 'better' method of ensuring survival than many, many others. If there were some way for a bat to actually choose to develop such an intelligence, we would be hard pressed to imagine it would select not to. It was simply not available to bats during their evolution. Either the offspring that were beginning down this path were less fit than the others, or there simply was never an opportunity to even begin down the path.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's a mistake to think that every brain (or computer for that matter), strives for our unique brand of intelligence. That seems such a pompous attitude!

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad I don't have it :-)
Depending on how you guage success, the most successful organisms are near 0 intelligence on any scale that we would measure.
I don't think any organism strives for anything other than reproductive success and that's built in by evolutionary pressures not a conscious decision. Intelligence of any level only matters when measured by how it contributes to the 'species'. Isn't there an organism that eats it's brain once it attaches to a rock?

None of the above has anything to do with the aspect of non-human intelligence I was raising. Our rational/realistic capabilities are bogged down by being too closely related to swamp flies. A non-human form of intelligence may kick our butt in any area when unbiased, extremely rational problem solving matters.
The space program is interesting in that regard. A smarter less limbic-influenced decision making entity may have a colony on mars by now if emotional mumbo-jumbo was set aside and the goal had been attended to.

[Lestat]

I see what you're saying. My main point was that we place such a high value on intelligence, because it is our main asset. There is no reason to think that a bat, a bird, or an aardvark, would value our intelligence in a similar manner, as they make their living in other ways.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I see what you're saying. My main point was that we place such a high value on intelligence, because it is our main asset. There is no reason to think that a bat, a bird, or an aardvark, would value our intelligence in a similar manner, as they make their living in other ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely agree. Its hindsight bias and human ego all mixed together. It is also one of the main things that seems to color peoples fears of developing advanced AI.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
A smarter less limbic-influenced decision making entity may have a colony on mars by now if emotional mumbo-jumbo was set aside and the goal had been attended to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think our emotions played a large part in even having goals related to space (and a lot of other sciences) and it's possible that a less emotional group would be less advanced space-wise.
There's little reason to go to space.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
If there were some way for a bat to actually choose to develop such an intelligence, we would be hard pressed to imagine it would select not to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this. Intelligence the way we are talking about it is expensive and I'm not sure in what way it would benefit the bat even if it were possible (the echolocating bat's brain is pretty well equipped for what it does and there are some barriers to changing its brain because of that.)

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Intelligence the way we are talking about it is expensive

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only is it expensive in terms of energy consumption, but it also introduces new levels of complexity and new potential for systemic failure. The more complicated the machinery, the harder it is to insulate and protect it from malfunction. Also development becomes a much more involved process, meaning sexual maturation at a slower rate and more attention needed from parents (resulting in a smaller number of offspring).

I think intelligence tends to be downright maladaptive, even in humans. Geniuses have extremely high rates of mental illness and relatively low rates of reproductive success.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Our brains developed it out of necessity

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't necessarily agree with this. Our brains could have developed along similar lines to a peacock's tail or a bowerbird's nest building behavior - through the development of a mating ritual that favored intelligence or certain skills. Or the genes that somehow grew larger brains may have had other effects such as a better immune system or a greater height or faster growth, and spare brainpower just hitched along for the ride.

I think people are too quick to map one trait to certain genes and then assume that trait was selected for because it's so obviously advantageous. Our intelligence could easily have been a freak accident of nature that didn't provide any advantage for a very long time.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Intelligence the way we are talking about it is expensive

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only is it expensive in terms of energy consumption, but it also introduces new levels of complexity and new potential for systemic failure. The more complicated the machinery, the harder it is to insulate and protect it from malfunction. Also development becomes a much more involved process, meaning sexual maturation at a slower rate and more attention needed from parents (resulting in a smaller number of offspring).

I think intelligence tends to be downright maladaptive, even in humans. Geniuses have extremely high rates of mental illness and relatively low rates of reproductive success.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, anytime you add or expand brain areas there's a lot more connectivity and processing problems.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Geniuses have extremely high rates of mental illness and relatively low rates of reproductive success.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder if that's a reliable statistic or just a general belief , I'm neutral on it. I'm wondering what % of 140+ ( pick a number) IQ people would be classed as mentally ill compared to a bit off like the rest of us.
When they hauled my neighbour away it didn't make the headlines like a chess master would. Mental illness is fairly common in the general population ( or is it just the crowds I move in :-) so geniuses would have to be really out of it to be stastically meaningful.

Are there reliable numbers out anywhere?

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
I think intelligence tends to be downright maladaptive, even in humans. Geniuses have extremely high rates of mental illness and relatively low rates of reproductive success.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to agree with this, with a semantic quibble. Genius is probably a mental disorder. As for reproductive success in creating other geniuses, I'd be inclined to think some don't want to reproduce, understanding the high price of certain positions of self-awareness.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

Exactly, anytime you add or expand brain areas there's a lot more connectivity and processing problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

"problems"? Comparing the brain of an elephant or dolphin or human with the brain of an earthworm seems an incredible expansion of connectivity and processing and actually seems to be quite successful. Since that's the only examples we have, why would we conclude that it's a 'problem' ... a lot of people don't even think it took a planner to lay it out, it's that easy to acheive.

[madnak]

Frankly, I don't know. I've had a lot of contact with the mentally ill, so I may have a bias. I'll say this, schizophrenics tend to be highly intelligent in my experience, and the number of highly intelligent people in the population of mentally ill seems disproportionately high.

[FortunaMaximus]

I wonder if there actually is a divergence in the evolution of brains in line with what has already occured in genetics. Different animus/persona feedback algorithms?

Here's the thing, if you look at human history and the status accorded to the mentally ill across the ages, oracles, medicine men, what have you, if you follow. They are given a certain awed respect. Could it be that this is a two-tier effect, they stand out for their madness, but have a prominent place in the community because the flipside of this madness is genius? Use the former to cloud the intents of the latter?

More in line with the original intent of OP, what's not to say felines, for instance, simply haven't had self-awareness emerge in obvious fashion yet because it may take longer in their evolutionary timeline?

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Exactly, anytime you add or expand brain areas there's a lot more connectivity and processing problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

"problems"? Comparing the brain of an elephant or dolphin or human with the brain of an earthworm seems an incredible expansion of connectivity and processing and actually seems to be quite successful. Since that's the only examples we have, why would we conclude that it's a 'problem' ... a lot of people don't even think it took a planner to lay it out, it's that easy to acheive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I may be being unclear. The point is not that big brains are bad. They're very good in some niches. It's that there are hurdles other than metabolic (although that's a big one) to overcome in order to get the big brain and those hurdles are often what keeps animals with small brains from getting bigger ones. Which may be why you don't see those earthworms' brains geting bigger.

In the bat example, much of their cortex is made up of subdivisions that process different parts of the echolocation. Shoving some association cortices in there to make the bat smarter presents a huge number of problems that require a lot more fixing than people often think. These problems include space issues, energy demands, connectivity, and processing. Bigger does not always mean better.

Let's look at a different example other than intelligence, since the complexity of the trait may make it confusing. Let's talk naked mole-rats. Cant see crap. Tiny eyes, atrophied central visual centers, etc. Why would this be? Primates, cats, etc. have great visual capabilities and seem quite successful. Why doesn't the naked mole-rat have better vision?
Same idea. Vision is expensive for a lot of reasons. It's not going to help the mole-rat to have sweet vision and actually hurts its fitness to have it.
Same thing with intelligence in a lot of species.

Maybe a better example would be rarer senses, like magnetoreception, UV vision, electroreception, etc.
Would magnetoreception, UV vision, or electroreception help humans? Maybe or maybe not. Electroreception is pretty worthless to us since we are terrestrial. Why develop it?

Now I'm rambling. I'll stop.

[vhawk01]

Your other examples are better than the argument about intelligence, both in being more clear and, IMO, being more accurate. It is easy to imagine why a naked mole rat would have shrunken and atrophied eyes. They go through the dirt like it were water, and having large eyes would incur infection and other problems. Also, as you mentioned, they live in almost complete darkness, so their eyes are practically useless. It is advantageous, obviously, for the eyes to shrink.

With intelligence, its more complex. There are different types of intelligence, to be sure. Bats have a certain type of functioning that allows them to process their highly sophisticated echolocation. It is easy to imagine the hurdles that initially developing larger brains would be. But it is harder to see that these developments, ONCE MADE, would be as unnecessary or useless to a bat as eyes to a mole. One can imagine any number of new solutions to the problems in the life of a bat that would become possible with a larger and more complex brain. It is possible, certainly, but not obvious, that the drawbacks would outweigh the positives. What IS clear, is that it is for some reason or other not beneficial to BEGIN down the path towards more human-like brains for most (all?) other animals.

[Rduke55]

It's thought to be more that it's advantageous to lose the tissue associated with vision in the naked mole-rats than the infection thing.

But besides the begining hurdles (how the hell do you wire all that crap up in an efficient way) there are also continous drawbacks to the big brain. Energy demand being the clearest.

I disagree strongly with your idea that animals in general would benefit from being smarter. Sometimes being dumb is just more adaptive. I'm not sure how some of these animals would benefit by being smarter.

Look at neophobia in a rat. Rats eat all kinds of things and are very good at developing conditioned taste aversions (where they associate a taste with nausea say and can avoid that in the future). For other animals with different eating habits that could actually be detrimental.


What about different types of spatial memory? Classic trait of "intelligence" to many people. Very useful for food-caching birds but not raptors.

For some animals decision-making, memory, etc. is just not important. And time or resources dedicated to it can have serious drawbacks.
People often overlook speed of processing when they talk about this stuff. Take the star-nosed mole. Essential to what it makes it so successful is how fast it can identify and consume prey. Adding layers of decision making or intelligence would just slow this down and could cause real problems.


Can you give me an example for what kind of increased intelligence you would propose would be useful in an echolocating bat and what problems will be solved?
(some bats do have great memories for reciprocation - I'm looking for a theoretical).

I'm rambling again. This is my field so I have too much to say.

[vhawk01]

I think I am coming along to your way of thinking. I don't know that I started out too opposed to what you are saying, anyhow, but I think I was incorrect. You make good points, and I just don't think I had thought this through as much as I should have.

[Rduke55]

That's why I tried giving other examples. As you stated, intelligence is so complex and carries so much baggage with it that it's hard for people (myself included) to look at it in the correct light sometimes.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm rambling again. This is my field so I have too much to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not finding it that way, merely that a lot of it isn't that relevant to the question as posed, interesting as the points you raise may be on their own.

For example, you're preaching to the choir when you bring up the uselessness or poor cost-benefits of more intelligent to most species.
You bring up an interesting example in how intelligence may well bog down a species with a version of analysis paralysis or information overload. I was dealing with the reverse situation, where it's the inherited non-intelligence that holds back the intelligence from performing well. We actually see mini versions of it in poker games. Emotions, superstition, selective memory, ego, territorial issues, etc are the biggest obstacles for most players. It's not that the game is too technical for them, or all that complex, but the reactions that may aid us in a bar fight aren't that helpful at getting us to the final table.

Look at the whizzing contest between Gould and Dawkins groups, both sides were not objective in their analysis of the others points ... it got personal and neandrethal.

[Rduke55]

I think you're underestimating the importance of emotion in evolutionary success.

And a lot of superstition is because of intelligence. Pattern recognition, etc.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you're underestimating the importance of emotion in evolutionary success.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all, it's hard to think of an 'advanced' species where emotions ( broadly defined) aren't the major factor, including ours.
[ QUOTE ]
And a lot of superstition is because of intelligence. Pattern recognition, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't superstition pattern misrecognition? That ties into my OP target and my poker example. It's not valid patterns that poorer players make their poor choices by, but a large variety of false or poorly-based patterns. "I can't win on Party, but I clean up on UB". "I don't win on the weekends". "My JJ's never hold up". "He's pushed me once to often." "I'll get that smug SOB" ...

An intelligence less rooted in limbic juices would make a great poker player. It would require an understanding of others hormonal imbalances but not suffer from them. Be a carrier of 'tiltitis' but not a victim.

[vhawk01]

Well, it is misrecognition, but its really the desire and amazing ability to see patterns that aren't really there. People must find patterns in almost everything...thats what our brains are for. So, we make these advanced causal links between things, whenever our understanding is lacking. Other animals do this as well, we are just really good at it.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
So, we make these advanced causal links between things, whenever our understanding is lacking. Other animals do this as well, we are just really good at it.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmmmm... relating this to my OP would be... Yes, we are innately good at pattern recognition and one thing intelligence adds is the ability to toss out invalid pattterns and to create useful tests ( science, for example) to sort the relevant ones from our constant background pattern chatter. Even leaving religion out ( examples are so easy it's no fun), think of all the scientific advances that were held back by 'cultural/emotional' considerations rather than analysis of the case as presented.

An entity as intelligent as us or even more intelligent would have a big leg-up on the areas that intelligence is the key ingredient be being much better at discarding faulty understanding in the face of new evidence, for example.

[Rduke55]

But a big part of what tells us some pattern's significance is due to limbic juice (I love that phrase). Not to metnion the motivation to do stuff (like race off to space).

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
There's little reason to go to space.

[/ QUOTE ]

Leaving that discussion aside, if going into space was the assignment it would be accomplished best by a human level intelligence ( or better) that wasn't crippled with inter-department rivalry, individual acheivement whizzing contest, sexual conquests in the office, personal resume-building side issues, etc.

Our abstract picture of a great scientist or a great poker player is a roughscale example of the type of entity I'm pointing at.

Or, because intelligence is not the most critical or powerful force at work in our species an entity that majored in intelligence .. and here's my claim ...&gt; would be much better at those tasks where intelligence is the major tool needed.

[Cumulonimbus]

I haven't read much of this thread, but I'd say that Ray Kurzweil is the foremost expert on the subject. For a mind-blowing read, pick this up...

http://www.prism-magazine.org/dec99/assets/images/Books1.jpg

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read much of this thread, but I'd say that Ray Kurzweil is the foremost expert on the subject.


[/ QUOTE ]

Good Lord no.

[Cumulonimbus]

Really? Please explain.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Really? Please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not real sure where to begin. It's the same story wrapped up in a prettier package for people to buy.

Much of what he's predicting is what strong AI people have been predicting for a couple of decades. They keep missing it and moving the date.

Also, he's really weak on biology and neuroscience. His stuff is way more science fiction than science. He'll take a technique (say any of his genetic stuff) and just assume that it soon will be able to do waaay more than it can because he's ignorant of either some general principles or of the sheer complexity of what he's talking about. People don't seem to understand how far out there his ideas actually are.

Same with his ideas about mapping the brain with nanobots and we'll be able to replicate it. He makes the classic modelers mistake. He looks at computer models of the brain, thinks that's the way it is, and figures that we just need more and faster computing power to mimic it. The brain doesn't work the way he thinks it does.

He took some graphs, extrapolated some lines ("We've been advancing at this rate for X years, it's getting faster and therefore will keep geting faster which means we'll get replaced by superintelligent robots soon because that's the way the math works.") and wrote a popular science book speculating on the future and making cute but wild predictions. That's what he does now. It's not actual science. In 2035 he'll just move the date.


Edit; Sorry Luckyme, I keep moving the thread away from your OP. I guess that if we are posting in this thread we should be taking the nonhuman intelligence thing as a given since your interest here is given that a nonhuman intelligence existed what advantages would it have over us if any? Rather than debating whether or not it is possible.