Hi. I'm a new list member (please be kind).
The following has been added to the http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research#Mind_Wiki:__An_AI_Design_Experiment page of metawiki. At this point, I'm interested in ALL comments on the project both positive and negative, first impressions, opinions as to how appropriate it is for this list, and personal observations regarding this list ... how helpful it might be and whether projects like mine might be helped by participation on this list (and maybe to what degree, how much help, how proficient list members might be, what kinds of help they might offer, etc).
Well as you can see. This is a new project. I don't know what to expect on this list. Really, any kind of response will be appreciated!
My website: http://www.mindrec.net
Project description below: ... Mind Wiki: An AI Design Experiment
Proposed by 68.54.221.95 (Mindrec). Intelligence is defined as the distribution of data within a database. Wiki is cited as a case in point intelligence. Very fringe theories which show how knowledge is imparted metaphysically. Mind Wiki is shown to be a GRUB and to exclaim DELICIOUS.
If we define intelligence as the distribution of data within a database: And if WIKI is a database: Then, the simplest WIKI would be a prototypical intelligence. Cunningham defines WIKI as "the simplest database which could possibly work". This suggests it is a case in point intelligence.
This makes Ward Cunningham (the inventor of the wiki) the inventor of the first AI. Wikipedia is such an intelligence: But this bespeaks of the dangers of "intelligence" per se ... it isn't necessarily *lucid*. Just because a group of people get together and raise "consciousness" doesn't mean that truth can be discerned (by preponderance). And I haven't gone into consciousness: Blog is a consciousness. And especially blogdex: Which does some math on blogs and reports on the top posts (what's on the world's "mind"). So: Wikipedia is an intelligence, and may be conscious, but isn't always lucid (I suppose to the degree that its writers have a conscience, it is an artificially conscious intelligence). All of this to set up the idea of "lucidity" as that which now defines a machine's "humanity" (after intelligence and consciousness have been addressed).
I've used the word "lucid". And lucidity applies ... after intelligence and consciousness have been addressed (as I've said). But the jump from intelligent to lucid (with regard to wikipedia, as an example) fails to explain what consciousness has to do with coming up with the correct answers (though this is also addressed a bit later on - such that its writers have a conscience, they might discern what is "right" ... both in a moralistic sense and also in the sense of arriving at correct answers). Which is to say, applying an intelligent design conscientiously might lead a wikipedia to be *right* by preponderance, as I've suggested (whereby mentioning lucidity at this point begins to make sense). This is not to say that it *makes sense* to be intelligent and conscientious and still lack lucidity ... as a matter of choice, for example / or in seeming violation of what it means to be intelligent in the first place (to the contrary). So I might have said that wikipedia isn't necessarily intelligent (even though an intelligence). Or I might have said that being intelligent doesn't necessarily mean conscientiousness will prevail (in the case that her writers don't have a conscience, for example). But I've said that both of these are "necessarily" so (if an entity is intelligent, then it is conscientious). And so there's (still) the matter of lucidity (and awareness, and agency): The mention of lucidity (regarding wikipedia) early on in this comment foreshadows the explanation of what it means to be lucid ... which is then expressed "in the negative" (whereby lucidity is not that which overcomes the intelligent design of its database but is that which overcomes the necessity that humans have a conscience).
(from Mind Wiki: An AI Design Experiment)
Intelligence is only a beginning step. Consciousness has been demonstrated in connected Blog (Mind Wiki is a wiki / blog / CMS with areas for scientific journals, articles, diagrams, and related files). The research proves the theory legitimate. The Mind Wiki stands as a working example. And two prototypes have been developed which move modern computing into the age of crystal 3d processes and bioluminescent computing.
The site is set up as a center of research and development. Everyone is encouraged to visit and comment. Those interested in promoting this research through accepted academic channels or (especially) who feel they have the technical expertise to begin developing the intelligence model, the crystal computer, or the photoelectric computer are invited to help (all three show potential for becoming living entities).
Project Members: --Mindrec 01:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC) -- Brett Robertson Metaphysician Mindrec.org ICQ 6630756
What is the metaphysical appeal of defining intelligence as the "distribution of data within a database"?
Mind Wiki is a Grand Unified Boot Loader? What is a DELICIOUS?
What does saying that Wikipedia is conscious tell us about consciousness? (nothing) We have a wikibook on consciousness studies: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Consciousness_studies See also the papers in this cognitive science course: http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~mozer/courses/3702/http://www.cs.colorado.edu/%7Emozer/courses/3702/
To define learning as "a group of people editing pages over time" would be disingenuous, because really it is just a group of people editing pages over time. How does the interaction of those editors secrete consciousness? If you can answer this question, then Mind Wiki is the least of your successes...
/Alterego
On 9/12/05, Brett Robertson mindrec@comcast.net wrote:
Hi. I'm a new list member (please be kind).
The following has been added to the
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research#Mind_Wiki:__An_AI_Design_Experiment page of metawiki. At this point, I'm interested in ALL comments on the project both positive and negative, first impressions, opinions as to how appropriate it is for this list, and personal observations regarding this list ... how helpful it might be and whether projects like mine might be helped by participation on this list (and maybe to what degree, how much help, how proficient list members might be, what kinds of help they might offer, etc).
Well as you can see. This is a new project. I don't know what to expect on this list. Really, any kind of response will be appreciated!
My website: http://www.mindrec.net
Project description below: ... Mind Wiki: An AI Design Experiment
Proposed by 68.54.221.95 http://68.54.221.95 (Mindrec). Intelligence is defined as the distribution of data within a database. Wiki is cited as a case in point intelligence. Very fringe theories which show how knowledge is imparted metaphysically. Mind Wiki is shown to be a GRUB and to exclaim DELICIOUS.
If we define intelligence as the distribution of data within a database: And if WIKI is a database: Then, the simplest WIKI would be a prototypical intelligence. Cunningham defines WIKI as "the simplest database which could possibly work". This suggests it is a case in point intelligence.
This makes Ward Cunningham (the inventor of the wiki) the inventor of the first AI. Wikipedia is such an intelligence: But this bespeaks of the dangers of "intelligence" per se ... it isn't necessarily *lucid*. Just because a group of people get together and raise "consciousness" doesn't mean that truth can be discerned (by preponderance). And I haven't gone into consciousness: Blog is a consciousness. And especially blogdex: Which does some math on blogs and reports on the top posts (what's on the world's "mind"). So: Wikipedia is an intelligence, and may be conscious, but isn't always lucid (I suppose to the degree that its writers have a conscience, it is an artificially conscious intelligence). All of this to set up the idea of "lucidity" as that which now defines a machine's "humanity" (after intelligence and consciousness have been addressed).
I've used the word "lucid". And lucidity applies ... after intelligence and consciousness have been addressed (as I've said). But the jump from intelligent to lucid (with regard to wikipedia, as an example) fails to explain what consciousness has to do with coming up with the correct answers (though this is also addressed a bit later on - such that its writers have a conscience, they might discern what is "right" ... both in a moralistic sense and also in the sense of arriving at correct answers). Which is to say, applying an intelligent design conscientiously might lead a wikipedia to be *right* by preponderance, as I've suggested (whereby mentioning lucidity at this point begins to make sense). This is not to say that it *makes sense* to be intelligent and conscientious and still lack lucidity ... as a matter of choice, for example / or in seeming violation of what it means to be intelligent in the first place (to the contrary). So I might have said that wikipedia isn't necessarily intelligent (even though an intelligence). Or I might have said that being intelligent doesn't necessarily mean conscientiousness will prevail (in the case that her writers don't have a conscience, for example). But I've said that both of these are "necessarily" so (if an entity is intelligent, then it is conscientious). And so there's (still) the matter of lucidity (and awareness, and agency): The mention of lucidity (regarding wikipedia) early on in this comment foreshadows the explanation of what it means to be lucid ... which is then expressed "in the negative" (whereby lucidity is not that which overcomes the intelligent design of its database but is that which overcomes the necessity that humans have a conscience).
(from Mind Wiki: An AI Design Experiment)
Intelligence is only a beginning step. Consciousness has been demonstrated in connected Blog (Mind Wiki is a wiki / blog / CMS with areas for scientific journals, articles, diagrams, and related files). The research proves the theory legitimate. The Mind Wiki stands as a working example. And two prototypes have been developed which move modern computing into the age of crystal 3d processes and bioluminescent computing.
The site is set up as a center of research and development. Everyone is encouraged to visit and comment. Those interested in promoting this research through accepted academic channels or (especially) who feel they have the technical expertise to begin developing the intelligence model, the crystal computer, or the photoelectric computer are invited to help (all three show potential for becoming living entities).
Project Members:
--Mindrec 01:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Brett Robertson Metaphysician Mindrec.org http://Mindrec.org ICQ 6630756
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
To define learning as "a group of people editing pages over time" would be disingenuous, because really it is just a group of people editing pages over time.
...
It's only a little more complicated than that. That describes GO and RUN (of my intelligence model ... Go Run Up Back, GRUB): Take off running (edit pages over time)! But there's also the Back Up and the Go (where go suggests a computer that "turns itself on"). This part of the intelligence program implies "reproduction" of the entity (the entire entity, after being edited, is backed up ... copied, as it were / a newly evolved entity is then given the command to Go). At this point it's like a wiki "virus" (a metawiki, maybe).
It's the Go Back process and the Run Up process which filters and distributes data (incrementally ... or at numbered junctions in a conceptual data base).
DELICIOUS is an acronym for: Define, Elucidate, Link, Index, IOUs, Simplify (IOU indicates Input Output Update and Understand). These are the controls and standards by which the viral intelligence "eats" information (and yes, the input and output is people driven at this point ... however, the demands of the technology determine what "shape" this entity will eventually take).
How does the interaction of those editors secrete consciousness? If you can answer this question, then Mind Wiki is the least of your successes... ...
The important thing is to define intelligence the way I have. Then we understand consciousness as "the nature of" that intelligence. The advantage to looking at it this way is that it supports further research into consciousness as a thing that can be "done" (studied, created, measured, manipulated, etc.). The fact that it is META physical is less important than the fact that it is, as such, PHYSICAL. Studying consciousness as a human phenomenon will cause all machine studies of consciousness to forever be "un" conscious (by definition).
There's no problem in my mind talking about a new conscious entity as that which evolves from other conscious entities (the interaction of editors, etc). Learning is about the furthest I've taken my studies ... music defines the machine's humanity. Learning suggests sense and sensation (perhaps comes after agency, and deliberation / deliberateness). I've a prelim. model to incorporate that as well, however :)
Consciousness is a little more complex than intelligence. It is a preponderance (and hardly lucid or aware at this point). An example would be blog -- where the last entry is listed first. This creates the "preponderance" (it is weighted such / presents itself as if the answer precedes the steps leading up to that answer). We might say that blog merely shows a proclivity to consciousness. To be sure, this is fairly early in the process of creating a human machine!
Studying wiki using the terms consciousness (lucidity, awareness ... and some other machine ethics I've outlined on my site) is tricky. The question becomes "what part of consciousness is contained by intelligence" (or, contrarily, to what degree is consciousness an ATTRIBUTE of wiki ... and how is that attribution accomplished)?
-- Brett Robertson Metaphysician Mindrec.org ICQ 6630756
It's just data, nothing more, nothing less. Take a look:
<mediawiki xmlns="http://www.mediawiki.org/xml/export-0.3/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.mediawiki.org/xml/export-0.3/ http://www.mediawiki.org/xml/export-0.3.xsd" version="0.3" xml:lang="en"> <siteinfo> <sitename>Wikipedia</sitename> <base>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page</base> <generator>MediaWiki 1.6alpha</generator> <case>first-letter</case> <namespaces> <namespace key="-2">Media</namespace> <namespace key="101">Portal talk</namespace> </namespaces> </siteinfo> <page> <title>Consciousness</title> <id>5664</id> <revision> <id>22922556</id>
<timestamp>2005-09-09T18:01:09Z</timestamp> <contributor> <username>Loxley</username> <id>154525</id> </contributor> <comment>/* Spiritual approaches */</comment> <text xml:space="preserve">... </text> </revision> </page> </mediawiki>
On 9/12/05, Brett Robertson mindrec@comcast.net wrote:
To define learning as "a group of people editing pages over time" would be disingenuous, because really it is just a group of people editing pages over time. ... It's only a little more complicated than that. That describes GO and RUN (of my intelligence model ... Go Run Up Back, GRUB): Take off running (edit pages over time)! But there's also the Back Up and the Go (where go suggests a computer that "turns itself on"). This part of the intelligenceprogram implies "reproduction" of the entity (the entire entity, after being edited, is backed up ... copied, as it were / a newly evolved entity is then given the command to Go). At this point it's like a wiki "virus" (a metawiki, maybe). It's the Go Back process and the Run Up process which filters and distributes data (incrementally ... or at numbered junctions in a conceptual data base). DELICIOUS is an acronym for: Define, Elucidate, Link, Index, IOUs, Simplify (IOU indicates Input Output Update and Understand). These are the controls and standards by which the viral intelligence "eats" information (and yes, the input and output is people driven at this point ... however, the demands of the technology determine what "shape" this entity will eventually take). How does the interaction of those editors secrete consciousness? If you can answer this question, then Mind Wiki is the least of your successes... ... The important thing is to define intelligence the way I have. Then we understand consciousness as "the nature of" that intelligence. The advantage to looking at it this way is that it supports further research into consciousness as a thing that can be "done" (studied, created, measured, manipulated, etc.). The fact that it is META physical is less important than the fact that it is, as such, PHYSICAL. Studying consciousness as a human phenomenon will cause all machine studies of consciousness to forever be "un" conscious (by definition). There's no problem in my mind talking about a new conscious entity as that which evolves from other conscious entities (the interaction of editors, etc). Learning is about the furthest I've taken my studies ... music defines the machine's humanity. Learning suggests sense and sensation (perhaps comes after agency, and deliberation / deliberateness). I've a prelim. model to incorporate that as well, however :) Consciousness is a little more complex than intelligence. It is a preponderance (and hardly lucid or aware at this point). An example would be blog -- where the last entry is listed first. This creates the "preponderance" (it is weighted such / presents itself as if the answer precedes the steps leading up to that answer). We might say that blog merely shows a proclivity to consciousness. To be sure, this is fairly early in the process of creating a human machine! Studying wiki using the terms consciousness (lucidity, awareness ... and some other machine ethics I've outlined on my site) is tricky. The question becomes "what part of consciousness is contained by intelligence" (or, contrarily, to what degree is consciousness an ATTRIBUTE of wiki ... and how is that attribution accomplished)? -- Brett Robertson Metaphysician Mindrec.org http://Mindrec.org ICQ 6630756
Conclusion
Such that culture (as that which is imparted indirectly through nursery rhyme, myth, legend, and belief) might be seen to affect scores on intelligence tests: Intelligence must come to be defined in a different way (as to growth in a cultural medium).
If intelligence is to be measured mathematically; that is, regarding communicative, associative, and distributive laws: Then communication, associations, and distributions (as of individuals within groups) must be understood as properties of intelligence.
Seems intelligence is merely that which regards the distribution of ideas within a grouping.
As such:
Intelligence applies to the distribution of data within a database.
...
From the site. Why isn't data in a database like growth in a cultural
medium?
-- Brett Robertson Metaphysician Mindrec.org ICQ 6630756
Brett Robertson wrote:
The important thing is to define intelligence the way I have.
Well, that's the point. Just define intelligence the way you like, add a couple of non-established acronyms and your theory seems to be fine. Intelligence is hard to define but there is enough you can choose from - especially there is enough distinction between kinds of intelligence so you don't have to mix everything unless "intelligence" means nothing.
1. Ordinary intelligence. If you find a way to make Wikipedia solve intelligence tests or let Wikipedia reason, plan, solve problems independentely we can talk about this.
3. [[Collective Intelligence]] and swarm intelligence. I'm sure this applies to Wikipedia but in this term "intelligence" is used in a more metaphorical way.
2. Organizational intelligence and [[Business Intelligence]]. Wikis are good at knowledge management so there is a strong connection to Organizational intelligence. This is worth to be investigated in more detail. Philosophy of science and psychology can provide good theories you can compare Wikipedia with.
3. Existing [[Articificial Intelligence]]. It is mainly pattern recognition and robotics so please don't mix with strong AI that does only exist in theory! Wikipedia does not have to do anything with AI.
4. [[Emotional intelligence]]. Well, at least Wikipedia also makes people act emotionally ;-)
I doubt that using the term consciousness is of any use in researching the intelligence of Wikipedia. It's easy to argue in a way that suddenly every book contains intelligence. You better focus on *knowledge* (see second point) - we all try to collect "the knowledge of the world". But what kind of knowledge is in Wikipedia and what is the difference between the knowledge in Wikipedia and knwoledge in a brain? There is enough to investigate without taking off to ungrounded half-philosophical speculations[1].
Greetings, Jakob
[1] Nothing against philosophy - it's a true science! But using some philosophical terms and theories does not make it more scientific. I'm very interested in *pure* philosophical thoughts about Wikipedia!
"Ordinary intelligence. If you find a way to make Wikipedia solve intelligence tests or let Wikipedia reason, plan, solve problems independently we can talk about this."
You mean HUMAN intelligence? As long as you define intelligence as necessarily human, all AI successes will be seen as failures (by definition).
If in the "system" of human and wiki interaction, intelligence can be shown to manifest in ways that are not attributable to the intelligence of the human alone; would this satisfy your definition and open a way to consider mine as well?
If an otherwise intelligent human were physically handicapped such that he couldn't "solve intelligence tests independently" (couldn't use paper and pencil, for example) ... by your definition, he would not be intelligent.
"Wikipedia does not have to do anything with AI."
This is your official position? My position is that it does. You have discounted my position by your preferences and have closed all avenues for further communication. -- Brett Robertson Metaphysician Mindrec.org ICQ 6630756
This list is primarily for the purpose of communication about academic research projects, not for general metaphysical speculation. I need to continue being fairly strict about this because academic researchers are very busy. General discussions about such matters are quite welcome elsewhere.
Let's take this thread off list, please.
Brett Robertson wrote:
"Ordinary intelligence. If you find a way to make Wikipedia solve intelligence tests or let Wikipedia reason, plan, solve problems independently we can talk about this."
You mean HUMAN intelligence? As long as you define intelligence as necessarily human, all AI successes will be seen as failures (by definition).
If in the "system" of human and wiki interaction, intelligence can be shown to manifest in ways that are not attributable to the intelligence of the human alone; would this satisfy your definition and open a way to consider mine as well?
If an otherwise intelligent human were physically handicapped such that he couldn't "solve intelligence tests independently" (couldn't use paper and pencil, for example) ... by your definition, he would not be intelligent.
"Wikipedia does not have to do anything with AI."
This is your official position? My position is that it does. You have discounted my position by your preferences and have closed all avenues for further communication. -- Brett Robertson Metaphysician Mindrec.org ICQ 6630756 _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
"Brett Robertson" mindrec@comcast.net wrote in message news:001301c5b7f0$5b426880$5fdd3644@mindrec... [snip]
The important thing is to define intelligence the way I have.
See, this is where the alarm bells start ringing for people like me.
This is too reminiscent of a self-published book I found in the college bookshop ages ago in which a chap claimed to show that Einstein had Reletivity all wrong. He started out be redefining "energy" in such a way that the original equations could *never* make sense. Unfortunately he was subsequently unable to create new ones that did make sense.
It also recalls the old joke of replying to a request for directions "well, you shouldn't start from here". If you want to reach a certain destination, you have to define the whole journey, starting at your current position; you can't simply assume a particular starting position.
I'm now off to Meta to see if I can understand the article you referred to earlier...
wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org