Artifical Intelligence can not be Artificial !

From: Tim_Miltz (tmiltz_at_etaion.com)
Date: 02/15/05 

Date: 14 Feb 2005 23:20:27 -0800

I was pondering something the other day that led me to an interesting
insight, which is, this term, AI (Artificial Intelligence) - it seems
that indeed, if attained (acquired ? think about it, requires
sentience), it could no longer be called artificial.

What surprises me is this looks to me like it can bring an end to
trying to zoom in on the horizon regarding the 'search for AI' heh. I
hope to offer some clarity in regards to Artificial Intelligence. And
I hope to further learn from other readers insights on this matter as
well.

As mentioned, Artificial Intelligence, as I understand the term, can
no longer be 'artificial', as I observe intelligence can not be
ingenuine. On the contrary, life seems to ffer 101 flavors of
ambiguity in thinking/thought processae that are perfectly valid, and I
do not believe intelligence that is purely derived from a formal system
acting as it's birthplace, can be anything BUT dis-ambiguous, as the
nature of 'formal' is in a galaxy far far far away from the nature of
'ambiguity'.

I've bene programming oh, since the late 1970's, probably more
algorithms and lines of code than I care to reflect on, but one thing
resounds true to me anymore. And that is, there can be no such thing
as 'artificial' Intelligence. There can only be an authors
intentional, or unintentional use (hey, I hear plastic came about this
way !) of some formal system that renders thought processae/thinking.
The prime causal factor lies in the author, the creator. Maybe
someone can draw a bridge to religion here, heh, no intent by this
author.

I would contend an idea in human thought is correlative to automata(e)
of thought process(ae) by and for humans, any attempts to mechanize
thought - are at the end of the day, still yet merely explicative of a
living hosts demonstration and use of some given formal system (e.g. N
Generation language in computer science).

I do not believe one can intelligence that is truly fragmentary (not
artifical) from the prime causal factor (the original thinker/maker).

Perhaps the ALL of AI boils down to an underlying issue to intelligence
 That is, if you don't have a living host, or criteria to define that
which is 'living', this whole AI pursuit may be full circle back to
Aristotle's 5 interdependent criteria for some thing to be considered
'alive' before you can entertain a definition of intelligence.

This insight challenges AI twofold, one, that it can not be considered
Artificial if ever attained, otherwise it's ingenuine intelligence, not
to mention disambiguous(which might be a nice break -from post such as
this), and two, that you can't get into expecting any intelligence to
be found before life can be found or identified first.

Perhaps the search for AI is no different than SETI, simply - looking
for life outside of the human condition. I do contend though that AI
is forbidden in concept to remain INSIDE the boundaries of the human
condition.

Lastly, intellect at core, is rooted in emotion. That's the big secret
revealed in Philosophy 900 level classes ;) Funny, children know this
too. Where is the banner slogan for Artificial Emotion ? ! lol,
that hopefully raises a decent point this author thinks is valid.

Star Wars showed us - we are not the machine, nor are we 'of' the
machine. Besides, who wants to live on the Death star anyway- it's
pure mechanization, ever notice any plants or women on the death star ?
 I noticed there were none. The mechanization of thought processae
simply - can only ever be just that, the mechanization of thought
processae as CAUSED by a human being, limited in comprehension by the
author and peers equally competent in some specialized field of study.

In fact, Darth Vadar is the closest I can find in a living (fictional
mind you) host that I can compare AI to: mechanical, calculating,
able to interface to living systems, usually at no regard for those
systems. It's almost like a neoclassical dream, or nightmare to seek
Vadar OR AI.

To the first person that discovers Artifical Intelligence (a
paradoxical concept I find - which can never be resolved), may it not
in turn, consume and destroy the creator. Perhaps this is the intent
Lucas wanted all along.

I don't even want to entertain Jung's model of Individuation and how
that would apply to mechanized thought 'as if' it were anything other
than that.

Let's stop looking for artificial intelligence and recognizing how far
we can work with real intelligence !

Thoughts ?

Tim Miltz
senior... senior... senior something or the other...