European IQ map

mise_me_fein · 03-08-2008 12:04am

A good aul IQ......some people are intelligent but don't know how to make money, some people know how to make money but are that intelligent...............which would you rather be?

There are so many different types of intelligence, streetsmart, etc.......I don't care if I come from a stupid race according to some test.

I know a guy who's really really smart but he can't have a human conversation with anyone.....is this good or bad?

nyarlothothep · 03-08-2008 12:59am

axer wrote: »

I believe he failed the writing and spelling tests - not an IQ test. Plus those tests were re-classified in 1966 (2 years later) and he was indicted for not joining the army.

Nope 115 would be above average. He also claimed black people are not as intelligent as white people so he discovered DNA but it doesn't automatically give him a really high IQ. There are many other factors that come into play such as persistance, interest in the subject etc.

They could be but that does not mean they will be successful. As I said above their are many other factors.

Again, it depends on how you define intelligence. Different IQ tests measure different abilities.

Ok I accept the first point, although I might add he was a very articulate individual in what he wanted to say.

However, the point about the second dude is that intelligence could involve just those very factors. A person is defined by their actions. Someone with an IQ of 210 could just spend their lives posting on internet forums about how high their IQ is, but to me they're not as intelligent as someone who made an intelligent discovery or someone who contributed something intelligent to human discourse. We are making a huge leap in relation to defining intelligence when we have no idea about how it operates, and its so obvious when we try to emulate it with AI, we have no idea, not a clue, the best we have are culturally defined models and I can say that anything that is culturally defined is a product of the times and not reliable in a scientific sense. The problem with IQ tests is that they measure puzzle solving ability no matter what skill they test, eg. spatial ability-puzzle solving, mathematics-puzzle solving, verbal ability-logical relationships--->puzzle solving. So they test intelligence for puzzle solving, thats it. Its pretty much a waste of time because its not scientific, there are too many variables and too many questions with regards to how the human mind operates. People I know have achieved IQ scores of anything from 90-130/130-200, how is that reliable? How are polls reliable? How is someone scoring low on verbal ability yet getting As in languages at school reliable? If anything the appeal of IQ tests is divisible to putting people in boxes, something some people like to do. Its another expression of the status quo ideology. IMO.

axer · 03-08-2008 1:49am

nyarlothothep wrote: »

A person is defined by their actions.

A person maybe but intelligence is defined as:

Capacity of mind, especially to understand principles, truths, facts or meanings, acquire knowledge, and apply it to practice; the ability to learn and comprehend;

[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Someone with an IQ of 210 could just spend their lives posting on internet forums about how high their IQ is, but to me they're not as intelligent as someone who made an intelligent discovery or someone who contributed something intelligent to human discourse.

Yes, to you. Just because someone might have high intelligence doesn't mean they will be successful. It doesn't even mean they will seem smart.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

We are making a huge leap in relation to defining intelligence when we have no idea about how it operates, and its so obvious when we try to emulate it with AI, we have no idea, not a clue, the best we have are culturally defined models and I can say that anything that is culturally defined is a product of the times and not reliable in a scientific sense.

Are you saying we don't understand fully how the brain operates?

AI is all around us. There are many machines operating with AI that you come into contact with everyday. Many machines operate better than humans - does that make them more intelligent than humans? World chess champions have been beaten by computers.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

The problem with IQ tests is that they measure puzzle solving ability no matter what skill they test, eg. spatial ability-puzzle solving, mathematics-puzzle solving, verbal ability-logical relationships--->puzzle solving. So they test intelligence for puzzle solving, thats it. Its pretty much a waste of time because its not scientific, there are too many variables and too many questions with regards to how the human mind operates.

And that is what an IQ test is designed to do. They are not testing a person. They are merely one tool a psychologist would use but no psychologist would rely solely on one tool.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

People I know have achieved IQ scores of anything from 90-130/130-200, how is that reliable?

There are many different IQ tests and plenty of made up tests on the internet that people think are the real tests. You would have to get tested with something like the WAIS-III.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

How are polls reliable? How is someone scoring low on verbal ability yet getting As in languages at school reliable?

People overcome weaknesses the whole time. If persistence and interest are strong then the person could do very well in their subject but a person with a higher IQ, the same persistence and same interest (amongst other factors) would learn quicker.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

If anything the appeal of IQ tests is divisible to putting people in boxes, something some people like to do. Its another expression of the status quo ideology. IMO.

Its a psychological test that is all. It is nothing more or nothing less.

SimpleSam06 · 03-08-2008 6:53am

axer wrote: »

Seriously, I haven't a clue what you are trying to say. Can you try again in English please.

My sneering contempt > your sneering contempt. Certainly more eloquent anyway. May I direct you to a dictionary so that you can look up some of the words there?

axer wrote: »

Have you a problem with psychologists or something? Do people go to psychologists just for an IQ test?

Were we talking about an IQ test here or not?

axer wrote: »

AI is in existence today in many range of fields. There are machines that can do all sorts of jobs better than humans.

See this is what I'm talking about. Complete lack of understanding of what intelligence actually is. A scythe does a job better than humans for a limited definition of "job", does that make it smarter?

AI is not in existence in any way, shape, means or form today. Christ almighty what an ignorant statement.

axer wrote: »

Are you saying we don't understand fully how the brain operates?

Aaahahahahah!! He finally gets it! /facepalm

axer wrote: »

AI is all around us. There are many machines operating with AI that you come into contact with everyday. Many machines operate better than humans - does that make them more intelligent than humans? World chess champions have been beaten by computers.

Sigh. The chess computer was reprogrammed after every move by its team to take account of the moves of its opponent. And even then chess is a simple game with a discrete number of moves at any given time. Its about a billion miles away from intelligence.

I mean what, do you look into you monitor when you turn on your computer and feel there is some sort of "intelligence" looking back at you? Its no more intelligent than a shovel or a dishcloth. Its this sort of primitive witchdoctoring that defines the mental health professions today.

axer wrote: »

There are many different IQ tests and plenty of made up tests on the internet that people think are the real tests. You would have to get tested with something like the WAIS-III.

I can't think of a more profound waste of time.

axer wrote: »

Capacity of mind, especially to understand principles, truths, facts or meanings, acquire knowledge, and apply it to practice; the ability to learn and comprehend;

You know whats interesting about your high sounding definition, if you try to make it into anything even vaguely useable in terms of AI, its worthless. So by definition, your definition is useless.

Overheal · 03-08-2008 7:08am

You tell him sam! Give into the petty argument and let everyone know you care about what they think of your IQ!

seriously people try putting mensa membership on your CV - it just makes you seem arrogant.

SimpleSam06 · 03-08-2008 7:56am

Overheal wrote: »

You tell him sam! Give into the petty argument and let everyone know you care about what they think of your IQ!

Ha?

Overheal · 03-08-2008 8:08am

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Ha?

Ya :pac:

SimpleSam06 · 03-08-2008 8:20am

Overheal wrote: »

Ya :pac:

SRSLY?

Overheal · 03-08-2008 8:22am

No. Sit down.

SimpleSam06 · 03-08-2008 8:24am

Overheal wrote: »

No. Sit down.

Well that was surreal.

axer · 03-08-2008 11:50am

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Were we talking about an IQ test here or not?

Yes, but you are calling psychologists quacks as if you know better.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

See this is what I'm talking about. Complete lack of understanding of what intelligence actually is. A scythe does a job better than humans for a limited definition of "job", does that make it smarter?

A scythe cannot cut grass by itself if it could then it would be an intelligent scythe.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

AI is not in existence in any way, shape, means or form today. Christ almighty what an ignorant statement.

Lol, you should really inform yourself before making such statements. Maybe start by reading up on what AI is. How am I supposed to be able to debate against someone who is just making it up as they go along.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applications_of_artificial_intelligence wrote:

Artificial intelligence has been used in a wide range of fields including medical diagnosis, stock trading, robot control, law, scientific discovery and toys.
Many practical applications are dependent on artificial neural networks, networks that pattern their organization in mimicry of a brain's neurons, which have been found to excel in pattern recognition.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Aaahahahahah!! He finally gets it! /facepalm

How do I argue with someone who is not even arguing about the topic at hand. You are arguing about basically recreating the brain. I am arguing about the effectiveness of IQ tests as a tool for psychologists.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Sigh. The chess computer was reprogrammed after every move by its team to take account of the moves of its opponent. And even then chess is a simple game with a discrete number of moves at any given time. Its about a billion miles away from intelligence.

A computer being able to play chess is AI.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I mean what, do you look into you monitor when you turn on your computer and feel there is some sort of "intelligence" looking back at you? Its no more intelligent than a shovel or a dishcloth. Its this sort of primitive witchdoctoring that defines the mental health professions today.

Yes, there is AI in use in computers.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I can't think of a more profound waste of time.

Again, because you know better than the countless psychologists who use such tools. Great to know you are so highly qualified and experienced.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

You know whats interesting about your high sounding definition, if you try to make it into anything even vaguely useable in terms of AI, its worthless. So by definition, your definition is useless.

Not my definition. Go read up on what you are talking about since your posts lack any substance and come back with some real arguments instead of "the majority of people that are qualified in this field are wrong but i'm right because I just know"

Tar.Aldarion · 03-08-2008 3:06pm

Overheal wrote: »

You tell him sam! Give into the petty argument and let everyone know you care about what they think of your IQ!

seriously people try putting mensa membership on your CV - it just makes you seem arrogant.

'Why should I pick you over somebody else?'
'I'm smarter than them'

electric69 · 03-08-2008 5:34pm

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Well bang goes gene theory then.

Would have to disagree with you there. I have an ability to do mental arithmetic faster than most people can do it on a calculator,whereas nobody else in my family can compare to my ability.

Tar.Aldarion · 03-08-2008 5:36pm

What does that prove?

electric69 · 03-08-2008 5:49pm

What does that prove?

In repsonse to another post:

vinylmesh wrote: »

I don't think there's much of a genetic basis for I.Q

The brain is like a muscle- If you want to be good at one aspect of brain power (e.g mental arithmetic) then you'll have to practise it!

Genius isn't something people are born with, it's something they aquire.

Tar.Aldarion · 03-08-2008 5:54pm

So are you saying you believe it is genes or something you can acquire?

electric69 · 03-08-2008 6:04pm

Im saying it is something you have to pratice. My family are all intelligent people but maybe not all of us are in a conventional way. I presonally have a very high IQ, but i was not always the most academic in certain aspects. I have an ability to do mental arithmetic unlike anyone i have ever met. I was not born with this ability and i taught myself from the age of 10 how to multiply large numbers in my head and be able to spit the answer out almost as quick as i can say the sum outloud. I had a pretty crap leaving cert compared to my sister who would be more intelligent in the conventional way but then my I.Q is higher than hers.

SimpleSam06 · 03-08-2008 6:24pm

axer wrote: »

A scythe cannot cut grass by itself if it could then it would be an intelligent scythe.

No, it would be a lawnmower.

axer wrote: »

How do I argue with someone who is not even arguing about the topic at hand. You are arguing about basically recreating the brain. I am arguing about the effectiveness of IQ tests as a tool for psychologists.

Hokay, concentrate now. IQ=Intelligence Quotient, for the important part of that, Intelligence, you need to have a definitive description, which you don't have, as evidenced by the spectacular lack of AI currently in existence.

axer wrote: »

A computer being able to play chess is AI.

By your definition, a roomba is AI. Being able to calculate the minimum amount of steps to achieve a desired mathematical goal isn't AI, its a glorified abacus.

axer wrote: »

Yes, there is AI in use in computers.

Just because you don't understand electronics and microcircuits doesn't mean other people don't. So just because it seems like the workings of arcane spirits to you, don't make it so.

axer wrote: »

Again, because you know better than the countless psychologists who use such tools. Great to know you are so highly qualified and experienced.

I wonder did alchemists used to say that to people.

axer wrote: »

since your posts lack any substance and come back with some real arguments

Heres a good idea, champ, maybe you should get hurrying along and start your google engines. Don't worry, you don't need to sacrifice any chickens to do so. Start out with these dramatic and earth shaking improvements in the IQ test in recent years that have so profoundly reshaped the psychological world.

Then maybe we might have the beginnings of a discussion.

SimpleSam06 · 03-08-2008 6:39pm

axer wrote: »

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence
Artificial intelligence has been used in a wide range of fields including medical diagnosis, stock trading, robot control, law, scientific discovery and toys.

And just to complete that paragraph, the bit you left out was: Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use it is no longer considered artificial intelligence

OK-Cancel-Apply · 03-08-2008 11:03pm

Hmmm. Tabloid + "IQ tests" + Nations ...*sniiiifffff sniff*... Bullsh1t?

axer · 04-08-2008 3:42am

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

No, it would be a lawnmower.

A lawnmower would still require the help of a human unless it was an intelligent lawnmower in which case it would be able to cut the grass without a human controlling it.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Hokay, concentrate now. IQ=Intelligence Quotient, for the important part of that, Intelligence, you need to have a definitive description, which you don't have, as evidenced by the spectacular lack of AI currently in existence.

There is no need to be so condescending. If you have a point to make then just make it without the attitude.

So the human brain has to be replicated before you think any intelligence can be tested for?

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

By your definition, a roomba is AI. Being able to calculate the minimum amount of steps to achieve a desired mathematical goal isn't AI, its a glorified abacus.

You still don't understand what AI means. Here's a definition for you:

Major AI textbooks define artificial intelligence as "the study and design of intelligent agents,"[1] where an intelligent agent is a system that perceives its environment and takes actions which maximize its chances of success.

Yes, a roomba uses artificial intelligence - it was even invented in MIT's Artificial Intelligence Lab.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Just because you don't understand electronics and microcircuits doesn't mean other people don't. So just because it seems like the workings of arcane spirits to you, don't make it so.

Please, please read what AI is otherwise it is pointless debating this issue.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Heres a good idea, champ, maybe you should get hurrying along and start your google engines. Don't worry, you don't need to sacrifice any chickens to do so. Start out with these dramatic and earth shaking improvements in the IQ test in recent years that have so profoundly reshaped the psychological world.

Then maybe we might have the beginnings of a discussion.

Again, there no need to be so condescending either you want a debate or you want to continue the sneering you seem so proud of. If you want to continue sneering and immaturity then their is no point continuing the debate.

I have made no claim of "dramatic and earth shaking improvements in the IQ test in recent years that have so profoundly reshaped the psychological world" so why would you ask me to prove it?

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

And just to complete that paragraph, the bit you left out was: Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use it is no longer considered artificial intelligence

So you think no new techniques are being constantly created? You think AI is not in existence today even though I have shown you it is? You have a misconceived notion of what AI is.

Tar.Aldarion · 04-08-2008 4:11am

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

as evidenced by the spectacular lack of AI currently in existence.

What do you think artificial intelligence is? Is a neuron based computer artificial intelligence? Is a genetic algorithm?
Artificial intelligence isn't just something that can pass the turing test.
AI systems are 'already integral to many everyday technologies such as internet search engines, bank software for processing transactions and in medical diagnosis'.

In this article we will try to demonstrate a very simple practical example of artificial Intelligence programming in Delphi using Delphi arrays.
I have chosen a Nepali game named "GATTA TIPNE KHEL" (meaning pebble picking game) for this purpose. We can see small children playing this game in the playground. In this pebble picking game a pile of some pebbles is kept in the ground. One of the two players picks one, two or three pebbles at a time in his turn, leaving the pile for the other player to pick for his alternate turn. In this alternate picking process, the player who picks the last pebble(s) will be the loser and called to be a DOOM in Nepali.

The main logic of the game is to leave the pile of pebbles with 13, 9, 5 or 1 pebble(s) for the opponent to pick. In the program the starting number of pebbles are set to 17, 21, 25, 29 … etc. so that computer could win always if it does not make a mistake. But in the real play computer seems to be gradually learning by correcting mistakes of the previously played games. At last it finds all its mistakes and corrects them to become an unbeatable champion.

Etc. Simple example, it gets far more complex.

Just because you don't understand electronics and microcircuits doesn't mean other people don't. So just because it seems like the workings of arcane spirits to you, don't make it so.

what does this mean? That for there to be artificial intelligence they has to be a 'soul/spark of life' or something? I don't follow what you mean by this and yes I understand circuits.

DanGerMus · 04-08-2008 4:40am

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

By your definition, a roomba is AI. Being able to calculate the minimum amount of steps to achieve a desired mathematical goal isn't AI, its a glorified abacus.

Yes it is and so is your brain.

And before you counter.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

just because it seems like the workings of arcane spirits to you, don't make it so.

Mahatma coat · 04-08-2008 5:03am

what surprised me on this thread is the way people were willing (mostly) to dismiss IQ tests once someone connected their creation to someone who also supported Eugenics.

Sam, rather than shooting down the axer at every turn how about you give us a clear definition of what AI is in your own words?

Overheal · 04-08-2008 7:33am

By your definition, a roomba is AI. Being able to calculate the minimum amount of steps to achieve a desired mathematical goal isn't AI, its a glorified abacus.

can you even get roomba's in europe? the things are stupid as sin. theres nothing 'intelligent' about it. nor is there anything intelligent about the US Military's Firescout UAV helicopter, despite the fact it can operate an entire mission plan with a single click: it still needs that mission plan programmed into it.

When a machine can read a work of literature and give me its personal opinion of it, that will be AI.

SimpleSam06 · 04-08-2008 7:48am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

what surprised me on this thread is the way people were willing (mostly) to dismiss IQ tests once someone connected their creation to someone who also supported Eugenics.

Actually people are willing to dismiss them because they were twisted from a method of deciding which children needed further education to a set-in-stone personal intelligence level, which they were never intended for.

As for the rest

1. Your brain isn't a glorified abacus. If it was we could just slap together a few million microprocessors and get a fully functioning human, which we demonstrably can't, and not for lack of microprocessors. Don't ask me what the special ingredients are, because I have no idea, and neither does anyone else.

2. The listings of AI applications demonstrate more than anything the abuse of the term "Artificial Intelligence", especially in the context of this discussion, and the dangers of depending on wikipedia for information.

The roomba is a hoover that bounces off the walls, for example. The wikipedia article lists many mechanisms that are not what could be called "AI" by anyone except their creators, who have obviously hijacked the term to give their product a little more zip and a little more value.

For example, factory robots are listed as AI. These are simple machines that repeatedly perform mechanical steps. You can reprogram them to perform other steps. In terms of our understanding of human intelligence, this has nothing to do with AI.

Look at the so-called "artifical neural network" operated by financial institutions. It certainly is a fine name, but does it bear any resemblance whatsoever to a network of neurons? No. It just runs numbers and picks out ones which deviate too far from means and medians. In terms of our understanding of human intelligence, this has nothing to do with AI.

Timesharing, GUIs and the computer mouse (!) were all once considered (or rather named) AI, but to emphasise my point, they have nothing to do with AI. Genetic algorithms seek to replicate the mechanism of natural selection, and once again, in terms of our understanding of human intelligence, they have nothing to do with AI.

Don't make the mistake of believing that any mechanical or mathematical legerdemain that has had an "AI" sticker slapped on its side, is anything to do with true AI, or brings us closer to understanding human intelligence, which is what we are discussing here.

3. Mahatma, if I had a clear definition of intelligence, that would put me pretty far ahead of anyone else on the planet.

Overheal · 04-08-2008 7:51am

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Actually people are willing to dismiss them because they were twisted from a method of deciding which children needed further education to a set-in-stone personal intelligence level, which they were never intended for.

I'll be happy to discuss the Education system at another time and place. Can we have cake now?

SimpleSam06 · 04-08-2008 8:08am

Overheal wrote: »

I'll be happy to discuss the Education system at another time and place. Can we have cake now?

Heh. This whole discussion was spawned from the IQ test, which was developed for the education system in France, as it turns out.

Overheal · 04-08-2008 8:33am

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Heh. This whole discussion was spawned from the IQ test, which was developed for the education system in France, as it turns out.

I see. Well they use it in the states too. I dont have a problem with the test in itself (it said I was intelligent, so it cant be all that bad) but some people might take reservation to Intelligent Students being given more opportunity than other students. After my test they moved me to a better school and dragged my siblings along for the ride. But guess what happened when I left the 5th grade? Dropped them like a stone.

SimpleSam06 · 04-08-2008 8:39am

Overheal wrote: »

I see. Well they use it in the states too.

It was people in the states and American educators that managed to warp it.

Overheal wrote: »

After my test they moved me to a better school and dragged my siblings along for the ride.

Are you serious?

axer · 04-08-2008 11:11am

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Actually people are willing to dismiss them because they were twisted from a method of deciding which children needed further education to a set-in-stone personal intelligence level, which they were never intended for.

That does not mean they are useless. There is a positive correlation between grades and IQ. Its not a 1 correlation but it does give an indication of someone's ability to learn. As I said before an IQ test should never be used by itself. No good psychologist would rely on any one test but you want to dismiss any psychologist that performs an IQ as a quack.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

As for the rest

1. Your brain isn't a glorified abacus. If it was we could just slap together a few million microprocessors and get a fully functioning human, which we demonstrably can't, and not for lack of microprocessors. Don't ask me what the special ingredients are, because I have no idea, and neither does anyone else.

2. The listings of AI applications demonstrate more than anything the abuse of the term "Artificial Intelligence", especially in the context of this discussion, and the dangers of depending on wikipedia for information.

The roomba is a hoover that bounces off the walls, for example. The wikipedia article lists many mechanisms that are not what could be called "AI" by anyone except their creators, who have obviously hijacked the term to give their product a little more zip and a little more value.

For example, factory robots are listed as AI. These are simple machines that repeatedly perform mechanical steps. You can reprogram them to perform other steps. In terms of our understanding of human intelligence, this has nothing to do with AI.

Look at the so-called "artifical neural network" operated by financial institutions. It certainly is a fine name, but does it bear any resemblance whatsoever to a network of neurons? No. It just runs numbers and picks out ones which deviate too far from means and medians. In terms of our understanding of human intelligence, this has nothing to do with AI.

Timesharing, GUIs and the computer mouse (!) were all once considered (or rather named) AI, but to emphasise my point, they have nothing to do with AI. Genetic algorithms seek to replicate the mechanism of natural selection, and once again, in terms of our understanding of human intelligence, they have nothing to do with AI.

Don't make the mistake of believing that any mechanical or mathematical legerdemain that has had an "AI" sticker slapped on its side, is anything to do with true AI, or brings us closer to understanding human intelligence, which is what we are discussing here.

You seem to want to redefine AI to suit your needs. See here for the major text books that define it as I have given above.

SimpleSam06 · 04-08-2008 1:17pm

axer wrote: »

That does not mean they are useless.

It does mean they are highly suspect, however, and any use of them should be at best treated as unreliable. Case in point, the article that opened this thread.

axer wrote: »

You seem to want to redefine AI to suit your needs. See here for the major text books that define it as I have given above.

If you have anything to say about the specific points I have raised, feel free to do so. Until such time, I will assume that you forfeit the issue.

axer · 04-08-2008 2:03pm

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

It does mean they are highly suspect, however, and any use of them should be at best treated as unreliable. Case in point, the article that opened this thread.

They have shown to be stable in their correlations with certain successes in life e.g. grades achieved in education which you would see from the report I linked to from the American Psychological Association.

Just because some people misuse the tests or use them for no good reason does not mean they are unreliable. Until you can produce such evidence to back up the statement that they are unreliable then I can only assume you are again making things up to suit yourself like you have done earlier in this discussion e.g. that the milgram experiment used ECT, that artifiicial intelligence doesn't exist, that psychologists administering IQ tests is some form of quackery, that you think you are right in defining AI as something different to what the experts in the field define it as...

A distinction needs to be made between real IQ tests such as the WAIS-III and those mickey mouse IQ tests that are available via internet etc.

IQ tests should be administered by psychologists in a controlled environment as part of a psychological assessment.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

If you have anything to say about the specific points I have raised, feel free to do so. Until such time, I will assume that you forfeit the issue.

Your whole definition of what artificial intelligence is completely wrong which I have already shown but you refuse to accept that definition given by experts in the field and choose your own. Unless you can prove that your definition is somehow supperior than that of the experts in the field then I think we will have to go with the expert's definition.

Fratton Fred · 04-08-2008 2:15pm

christ on a bike, you can tell the colleges are closed.:rolleyes:

forget all the acedemic stuff, the really important point is, are the French as thick as two short planks or not?

SimpleSam06 · 04-08-2008 2:32pm

axer wrote: »

making things up to suit yourself like you have done earlier in this discussion e.g. that the milgram experiment used ECT, that artifiicial intelligence doesn't exist, that psychologists administering IQ tests is some form of quackery, that you think you are right in defining AI as something different to what the experts in the field define it as...

So you have nothing to say on the points I raised? I accept your foreiture.

Prof.Badass · 04-08-2008 2:49pm

I have an I.Q of 1,000,000 which makes me right and you wrong.:D

I read a really good article once in newscientist magazine. READ IT!

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19125691.300-how-to-be-a-genius.html

Tar.Aldarion · 04-08-2008 2:55pm

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Actually people are willing to dismiss them because they were twisted from a method of deciding which children needed further education to a set-in-stone personal intelligence level, which they were never intended for.

As for the rest

1. Your brain isn't a glorified abacus. If it was we could just slap together a few million microprocessors and get a fully functioning human, which we demonstrably can't, and not for lack of microprocessors. Don't ask me what the special ingredients are, because I have no idea, and neither does anyone else.

Please prove to me how we are not just an advanced electrochemical computer and how we are different from any computer apart from complexity and components.

2. The listings of AI applications demonstrate more than anything the abuse of the term "Artificial Intelligence", especially in the context of this discussion, and the dangers of depending on wikipedia for information.

No, it seems to be you that is creating some false definition for AI, possible just superstrong AI are AI to you. AI was coined in the 40's I believe with research starting a little later and it is not what you say it is. Where are you getting a definition the creators do not have nor any AI research group?
Please define what you think it is. Why is our research group comprised of dr's in the area and dozens of phd students using the 'wrong' definition?

For example, factory robots are listed as AI. These are simple machines that repeatedly perform mechanical steps. You can reprogram them to perform other steps. In terms of our understanding of human intelligence, this has nothing to do with AI.

Look at the so-called "artifical neural network" operated by financial institutions. It certainly is a fine name, but does it bear any resemblance whatsoever to a network of neurons? No. It just runs numbers and picks out ones which deviate too far from means and medians. In terms of our understanding of human intelligence, this has nothing to do with AI.

Timesharing, GUIs and the computer mouse (!) were all once considered (or rather named) AI, but to emphasise my point, they have nothing to do with AI. Genetic algorithms seek to replicate the mechanism of natural selection, and once again, in terms of our understanding of human intelligence, they have nothing to do with AI.

When these things were first invented they were quite advanced to people, tehy were AI to the people that created the term and to the people of the world, when something becomes commonplace it does not determine what it should be called. Do you think AI is about replicating human intelligence alone? It is nothing of the sort, that is a branch of it.

Don't make the mistake of believing that any mechanical or mathematical legerdemain that has had an "AI" sticker slapped on its side, is anything to do with true AI, or brings us closer to understanding human intelligence, which is what we are discussing here.

You are discussing one small of AI and calling it all of AI.

Q. Isn't AI about simulating human intelligence?

A. Sometimes but not always or even usually. On the one hand, we can learn something about how to make machines solve problems by observing other people or just by observing our own methods. On the other hand, most work in AI involves studying the problems the world presents to intelligence rather than studying people or animals. AI researchers are free to use methods that are not observed in people or that involve much more computing than people can do.

3. Mahatma, if I had a clear definition of intelligence, that would put me pretty far ahead of anyone else on the planet.

Intelligence is the computational part of the ability to achieve goals in the world. Varying kinds and degrees of intelligence occur in people, many animals and some machines.

Q. Isn't there a solid definition of intelligence that doesn't depend on relating it to human intelligence?

A. Not yet. The problem is that we cannot yet characterize in general what kinds of computational procedures we want to call intelligent. We understand some of the mechanisms of intelligence and not others.

more tea vicar · 04-08-2008 3:35pm

A full scale IQ study comparing all the different types of religion, plus a comparison to agnostics and athiests, would possibly answer some questions.

Don't know if Serbians are all that religious but their war record and narrow minded stupidity seems to bear well with their national IQ, was it 89? Getting on there for the level of Barry George.

Inverseley it is a perfectly rational arguement to conclude in certain cases that someone even over 150 could be commonly referred to as a complete díckhead.

I'd say overall academic results, along with career success, prejudices and anti-social behaviour, basic IQ tests, plus tests in other areas of talent, would give someone an overall idea of how clever someone is, not just IQ alone.

A ham fisted angry bouncer for example, compared to yer average astronaut, it would not take much to guess on occupation alone as to what quality of the old cog lubricant they are using.

SimpleSam06 · 04-08-2008 3:37pm

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

Please prove to me how we are not just an advanced electrochemical computer and how we are different from any computer apart from complexity and components.

Please prove to me how we are any different to tomatoes, apart from complexity and components. Thats like saying, apart from everything, aren't we exactly the same as computers?

Yeesh, determinists.

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

No, it seems to be you that is creating some false definition for AI, possible just superstrong AI are AI to you. AI was coined in the 40's I believe with research starting a little later and it is not what you say it is. Where are you getting a definition the creators do not have nor any AI research group?
.
.
.
tehy were AI to the people that created the term and to the people of the world, when something becomes commonplace it does not determine what it should be called.
.
.
.
etc

Oho, so we are talking about the moving target of what researchers call AI now? There I was thinking we were talking about the definition of intelligence as it pertains to IQ tests, and the fact that there isn't any such definition. One group of researchers make an automated tin can maker, and its AI. Another group make a spam filter, now thats AI.

Tell you what, I'll line up a bunch of dominoes and slap a few entertaining widgets in there to switch on the lights. Now thats AI as well. Looks pretty advanced to me!

I wager it gives those dr's and phds a nice warm feeling to tell people that they are working on "AI", though.

In this discussion, its pretty clear we aren't talking about automation or any one of the many facets of same that people have chosen to call "AI" down through the years, before changing their minds because it wasn't advanced enough any more (and by the way, that is extremely telling as regards the usefulness of the term by researchers in any real sense).

We are talking about general intelligence, for which there is no commonly accepted definition. This I made abundantly clear with each and every point I raised earlier, going through the list of applications developed using "AI".

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

Intelligence is the computational part of the ability to achieve goals in the world.

Ya, good luck with that.

Acid_Violet · 04-08-2008 3:42pm

darkman2 wrote: »

The Daily Mail extolling the virtues of the intelligence of Britons *shock horror*

http://i35.tinypic.com/2lk8buv.gif Map

IQ, apparently, is not much of an evaluation of one's intelligence.

Next week in the Daily Mail, a special supplement on the biological supremacy of us Brits.

Tar.Aldarion · 04-08-2008 3:59pm

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Please prove to me how we are any different to tomatoes, apart from complexity and components. Thats like saying, apart from everything, aren't we exactly the same as computers?

Yeesh, determinists.

No, we are the same as computers in every way, we are not different, we are both controlled by electricity, one is biological, the other mechanical.
The point is you are claiming we are not deterministic with no proof, whereas I can not say we are deterministic with 100% proof, we have nothing to say that we are not just as nothing to say we are.
However you deride some poster becasue you believe that we are not deterrministic and therefore computers can not be like us as they do not have an 'arcan spirit' in them.

The rest of your post is not worth answering, you argue with the definition of AI with everybody in the field. You still didn't say what your definition is, no university or research group will have one differing greatly from what I have put forth. How about yours?
You get to decide what the term means over the people who created it?

SimpleSam06 · 04-08-2008 4:12pm

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

No, we are the same as computers in every way, we are not different, we are both controlled by electricity, one is biological, the other mechanical.

Heh. Not exactly an argument against your point per se, but close enough.

Except, of course, the activity of the One Machine, even if we accept it as an entity, is not the slightest bit like thought. As Charles Arthur rightly points out in his response to Kelly on the Guardian technology blog, the human brain is biological and comparisons between transistors and neurons, not to mention between hyperlinks and neurons, are not comparing like with like (2). The human brain does not work like an electronic computer, even a massive, super-interconnected computer.

All very true, but, unfortunately, psychologists and neuroscientists seem all too ready to argue that the brain is, at least a bit, like a computer, and that the mind is, at least a bit, like the software that runs on a computer (3). A typical neuropsychological account of experience involves parts of the brain pointing to other parts of the brain with various functions associated with each part. Vision, for example, is something that occurs at the back of the brain, where the basic features of a scene (shapes, colours, motion) are picked out. Information then flows from the back to the front of the brain along two pathways.

The pathway along the bottom of the brain elaborates what is being seen, while the pathway along the top of the brain elaborates where it is. A recent review in the academic journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences argued that the brain ‘converts information about spatiotemporal sequences into meaningful actions through interactions between early and higher visual areas processing form and motion and frontal-parietal circuits involved in the understanding of actions’ (4). What the authors are saying is that the brain somehow produces meaningful action by integrating lots of information, which is not a million miles from what Kelly is describing in his theory about the brain-like One Machine.

Instead of explaining perception, thought and behaviour, the neuropsychological understanding provides us with a sophisticated description. That description might be factually correct, and may have application, but it is not an explanation. Explanations identify causal relations; our current models of how the brain works merely pull the conscious being that perceives, thinks and behaves out of the magic hat of the brain.

There is a temptation to think that the inadequacy of our neuropsychological explanations is because of a lack of knowledge about how the brain works. What we need is more technology and more experiments. There is some notable truth to this, of course; we really don’t know how the brain works and more technology and more experiments are likely to be valuable. Yet merely providing more information about the brain (and merely bringing together ever-increasing computing power) will not by itself yield an understanding of perception, thought and behaviour.

While raw processing power is a necessary condition for perception, thought and behaviour, it is not sufficient. An understanding of thought must, at the very least, also include an account of the contents of thought. We have argued elsewhere that an understanding of thought based on an interrogation of neuronal (or electrical) activity will fail to describe thought because thought is not the firing of neurons (5). We believe that any understanding of thought should feel and sound like what it is.

The remarkable thing about human beings is not our brains per se, but the way we make knowledge explicit (6). We don’t just ‘see’ something and react to it, as a computer might; we place ourselves into a relationship with the thing that we are seeing. Consequently, while many animals might be said to ‘see’ the sky, only human beings will try to see more. The sky’s the limit, or not, depending on what we are trying to do.
.
.
.
Both a human brain and a computer might, very loosely, share processing properties. But all of the processing power in all of the world’s computer gadgets and all of the world’s brains combined and jumbled together in any formation desired will never yield even a single thought – because thought is not the product of raw processing power. Modern computers locked together within the World Wide Web are brilliant at yielding information and connecting people, but this is in no way emulates a mind. The information and exchanges are massed but are not collective; the mass of exchange is not aimed at anything in particular and has no centre or particular point where experience might occur or distill. All human beings are the centre of experience, and particularly brilliant human beings – Mozart, Lenin, Einstein – forcefully distill collective intent and understanding. No computer can do this.

Stuart Derbyshire is a senior lecturer in psychology at the University of Birmingham. Anand Raja is reading psychology at the University of Birmingham.

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

The rest of your post is not worth answering, you argue with the definition of AI with everybody in the field.

On the contrary, I have no particular problem with what they call it, they can call it cabbage farming if thats what takes their fancy.

You might enlighten me, however, as to what bearing a robot arm in a factory has on this discussion, with regards to the usefulness of IQ tests?

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

You still didn't say what your definition is, no university or research group will have one differing greatly from what I have put forth. How about yours?

This gets even funnier when you look into the definitions of intelligence in different cultures, African or Asian in particular.

/saw ya coming

SimpleSam06 · 04-08-2008 4:28pm

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

However you deride some poster becasue you believe that we are not deterrministic and therefore computers can not be like us as they do not have an 'arcan spirit' in them.

And in response to your edit, the derision came from the "AI in computers right now" comment that was made, which led me to believe that a sorry lack of understanding of how computers work was in motion. AI as it is being discussed relevant to this thread (ie, not robot arms or spam filters) does not exist. Pointing to these automated devices is fruitless as evidence of AI, in the context of the thread. Even the very act of bringing it up in such a context betrays a severe misunderstanding at best, or poorly attempted misdirection at worst.

Tar.Aldarion · 04-08-2008 4:31pm

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Heh. Not exactly an argument against your point per se, but close enough.

I edited my post above to include this btw:

No, we are the same as computers in every way, we are not different, we are both controlled by electricity, one is biological, the other mechanical.
The point is you are claiming we are not deterministic with no proof, whereas I can not say we are deterministic with 100% proof, we have nothing to say that we are not just as nothing to say we are.
However you deride some poster becasue you believe that we are not deterrministic and therefore computers can not be like us as they do not have an 'arcan spirit' in them. I know that the AI that he was referring to os not the branch that the discussion is referring to(although it is on a basic level) but that does not mean it is not AI.

What your quote does is say that we do not know how the brain works, we can't know yet but then goes on to make assumptions based on nothing.
An example:

Both a human brain and a computer might, very loosely, share processing properties. But all of the processing power in all of the world’s computer gadgets and all of the world’s brains combined and jumbled together in any formation desired will never yield even a single thought – because thought is not the product of raw processing power.

What is a thought, why could we think and something else not? What proof has anybody for this? None. How is a thought different from a gathering of information and creating a decision based lo an algorithm? Why would he go to the pain of saying we can't understand the brain but then go on to say it is nothing like a computer? Does his pyschology degree tell him or others something my electronic and computer one doesn't even though I have done a specific course on this topic? Was taught how and why the body works with regards to electricity and electromagnetism. We work exacltly like a machine, it is how we are controlled. I could apply a voltage to you and know what the reaction wouold be, I know what voltage pain responds to and can change it. We act exactly like a machine. Until somebody can prove we do not somehow I won't believe we somehow have a 'soul' for want of a better term. Your quote even says we are not like a machine but other animals are, lol.

On the contrary, I have no particular problem with what they call it, they can call it cabbage farming if thats what takes their fancy.

What they call it is what it is, you are saying that things are not AI when in all definitions of AI that there are, they are.

You might enlighten me, however, as to what bearing a robot arm in a factory has on this discussion, with regards to the usefulness of IQ tests?

I was not arguing the IQ thing, IQ tests are nonsense, they are just handy for giving a reasonable estimation of if somebody is smarter in some areas than another person. I was just having an issue with your use of AI having been around it in university.

This gets even funnier when you look into the definitions of intelligence in different cultures, African or Asian in particular.

/saw ya coming

The definition of intelligence in varying cultures does not affect the definition of 'artifical intelligence' which is a coined term by certain lecturers/researchers and given a certain definition.
It is not a case of chinese people think this is intelligence and americans think this is intelligence so the definition of AI is differing for both.

axer · 04-08-2008 4:35pm

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

AI as it is being discussed relevant to this thread (ie, not robot arms or spam filters) does not exist. Pointing to these automated devices is fruitless as evidence of AI, in the context of the thread.

Ok, so now you accept that AI (which you brought up in this thread) does exist. About time.

Goes to show how silly this statement is then:

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

AI is not in existence in any way, shape, means or form today. Christ almighty what an ignorant statement.

I think you summed up the first sentence with your second sentence. Well done.

SimpleSam06 · 04-08-2008 4:48pm

How does this:

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

whereas I can not say we are deterministic with 100% proof, we have nothing to say that we are not just as nothing to say we are.

Synch with this:

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

We work exacltly like a machine, it is how we are controlled.

We act exactly like a machine.

Well, looks like I am not the only one making defintive statements.

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

What they call it is what it is, you are saying that things are not AI when in all definitions of AI that there are, they are.
.
.
.
It is not a case of chinese people think this is intelligence and americans think this is intelligence so the definition of AI is differing for both.

Hold on there now, this is the third time you've ignored my comments on context. Once again, what does a spam filter have to do with what we are discussing?

axer wrote: »

Ok, so now you accept that AI (which you brought up in this thread) does exist. About time.

Robot arms certainly exist, I'll give you that. They aren't anything to do with what we were talking about though, so I'm not sure why you bothered bringing them up.

axer wrote: »

I think you summed up the first sentence with your second sentence. Well done.

Yes, I was labouring under the mistaken belief that you had grasped that we were discussing IQ tests, and AI as it refers to that. I mean if someone said "coppers" in a discussion about the police, would you immediately provide links to the mint? I'll be sure to spell out every single point I make so, from now on. Edit: Actually, I clarified this point in the post you quoted there, so apparently even that isn't sufficient. Perhaps if I used crayons...

Tar.Aldarion · 04-08-2008 5:05pm

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

How does this:

Synch with this:

Well, looks like I am not the only one making defintive statements.

Um, in one I am referring to the inner workings of the brain, in the other I am referring to the muscles in your body which can be seen to react deterministically to incoming and outgoing signals(To be really solipsistic, nothing can be determed). Should have made that clearer. The problem I have with a non deterministic brain is how would it come about? This is how I see it. We all started off as 'low intelligence' cells which came from simple enzymes/chemicals/whatever and evolved over millenia gaining new algorithms through evolution. Our program is adapting over time and becoming more advanced, such as when any animal is born with instinct due to previous members of it's species. Now, how much exactly does something have to evolve for it to be non deterministic? The life we stem from predates the 'brain' as we know it and our brain is something that has been created via evolution(assuming you believe in evolution), it becomes more advanced with time, when would it's properties change to be non-deterministic, I personally don't believe there would be some such switch. A lot of people that think we are not deterministic think other animals are, clearly teh switchj for them must be between their brains and ours...

Hold on there now, this is the third time you've ignored my comments on context. Once again, what does a spam filter have to do with what we are discussing?

A spam filter has not much to do with IQ tests, the argument stems from your discussion with axer and AI but I do believe that the like of a computer playing chess etc and winning through a genetic algorithm is part of the AI you are referring to, it is a basic first step before things get more complicated.

Yes, I was labouring under the mistaken belief that you had grasped that we were discussing IQ tests, and AI as it refers to that. I mean if someone said "coppers" in a discussion about the police, would you immediately provide links to the mint? I'll be sure to spell out every single point I make so, from now on.

This is not the same thing, a mint and the police are not two interconnecting branches of a security force, they are different things. A robot arm and so forth are AI with regards to creating human intelligencce in the way that the hope is to develop each aspect of what we know to be intelligence, no matter how simple and combine them tgether in some way.

axer · 04-08-2008 5:08pm

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Robot arms certainly exist, I'll give you that. They aren't anything to do with what we were talking about though, so I'm not sure why you bothered bringing them up.

Ah, no...you are the one who brought up both AI and robotic arms. You do not accept the definition of AI. You chose to define it your own way because you think it is not relevant (doesn't suit you) to define it the internationally accepted way.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Yes, I was labouring under the mistaken belief that you had grasped that we were discussing IQ tests, and AI as it refers to that. I mean if someone said "coppers" in a discussion about the police, would you immediately provide links to the mint? I'll be sure to spell out every single point I make so, from now on. Edit: Actually, I clarified this point in the post you quoted there, so apparently even that isn't sufficient. Perhaps if I used crayons...

You posted:

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

AI is not in existence in any way, shape, means or form today.

but you are wrong but you will not admit it. You were also wrong about the milgram experiment having used ECT. I think this clearly shows the complete ignorance in your posts regarding intelligence and psychology in general.

Maybe you really want to be talking about artificial life and not AI and are simply confused.

Quazzie · 04-08-2008 5:32pm

I have an IQ of 145 (Official test result) but couldn't tie my laces till I was 9. Nuff said. IQ tests are crap and are no real representation of any intelligence.

Tar.Aldarion · 04-08-2008 5:38pm

They show some areas such as numberical and so on. Very limited though, in my opinion. Everybody knows roughly how intelligent they are, although everybody overestimates it for themselves.

European IQ map

Comments