QUOTE (chickenwing)It is true that "artificial" is ambiguous and also needs defining. I was using the word in the sense that it is "man-made", vs "nature-made".
Yes but what about genetically modified wheat or corn ? It
is man-made, but you could argue that man is just tuning the blueprint created by nature. And it grows in the field, so it has the feel and touch of a 'natural' plant - unlike those plastic or wooden flowers that are used for room decorating.
But alright, let's say plants don't posess intelligence. Still, scientists were able to clone mice, cats and even horses. Now horses certainly do posess intelligence (understanding , learning etc.), albeit an inferior form of intelligence, if we compare it to the capabilities of human mind. If I interpret well your definition, clones are not artificial intelligence , but artificially created intelligence, by duplication of a natural blueprint for intelligence.
QUOTE (chickenwing)When intelligence can be created without requiring reproduction, it is artificial intelligence, at least by my definition.
Okay. I'll go with that.
I wager you imply no natural (sexual or asexual) nor artificial reproduction (cloning, stem cells etc.).
******************************************************************
I'll also agree with monsta666, in describing intelligence as the utmost degree of intelligence seen in nature - i.e. human intelligence
This concurs with the definition of AI by Dictionary.com :
Artificial Intelligence = "the capacity of a computer to perform operations analogous to learning and decision making in humans"
QUOTE (chickenwing)An interesting thought: "If the human brain was complex enough to comprehend itself, it would be too complex to comprehend"
Yes. That would be a problem
But monsta666 says it's not necessary to fully comprehend the human brain in order to identify an intelligent machine ('intelligent' as in 'human intelligence'). Suffice to perform the Turing test for that.
BUT you HAVE TO make those assumptions in order for the Turing test to be valid:
1) the assumption that all intelligence is human intelligence (is there no other form of intelligence ? If a human brain spoke from inside the body of a dolphin, would we recognize it as intelligent - or just stupid, because it does not act like a dolphin, but instead tries to freak everybody out by acting like a mutant ?)
2) that all that a human can say in a conversation is recognizable as intelligent (sometimes people don't understand each other's views. If you have me Turing-test a toaster and a racist person, I may pick the toaster as the intelligent being.)
3) (similar to 1) That it's not necessary to display intentionality or feelings to be recognized as intelligent
The example of the robot reading the newspaper and getting a job goes beyond the Turing test. The robot takes initiatives : it tries to live as a human.
But that may not be recognized as intelligent. What if the robot's was not design to travel over surfaces other than the kitchen floor ? The intention of leaving the kitchen would have been good if it was capable to do so. If it trips over the carpet and breaks down, the robot might seem unintelligent to its owner.
But the owner might also say "it had the best of intentions, let's not blame it".
Depends on his/her feelings towards the robot.
In brief : Since it's the human who decides who is intelligent and who's not, the Turing test only confirms the quirky judgment of an unreliable living creature.
*****************************************************************
Finally, if the human mind is embedded with the human body, which has come about through the process of evolution of species - a 3 billion year-long process - is it realistic to try to recreate something similar with silicon machines over a period of less than a century ?
From a philosophical point of view, among the
AI approaches, I prefer by far sub-symbolic AI over symbolic AI.