Subjective Intelligence :: Technology Technological Essays

Subjective news program The human aspiration to create precocious cars has appe bed in myth and belles-lettres for thousands of years, from stories of Pygmalion to the tales of the Jewish Golem. After thousands of years of fantasy, the appearance of the digital computer, with its native, human-like ability to work out symbols, made it seem that the myth of man-made learning agency could become reality. However, when allow for we know when we have reached that critical point when a machine becomes a mind? What is it that distinguishes real intelligence from the mere processing of symbols and interpretation of stimuli? When is intelligence achieved? To answer these questions i needs a concrete definition of intelligence in order to formulate the criteria necessary to evaluate the intellectual potency of machines and men.Websters dictionary defines intelligence as, The ability to learn and understand.1 This is a real broad definition and allows for as much interpre tation as the idea we are trying to define. Furthermore, this definition fails to scotch for the full range of wisdom that the human brain is capable of. Websters definition does non account for the critical aspects of emotion, free will and personality. A second definition addicted by the Encarta encyclopedia is the general mental capability to reason, solve problems, remember abstractly, learn and understand new material and profit from past experience.2 any of these are traits of the human mind. Therefore it would follow that if a machine does not possess one of these human characteristics it cannot be considered intelligent. Furthermore, it necessitates that an intelligent machine must(prenominal) be human-like. If this is so, a machine could then be described with the like qualifying words we use to describe a human. Is a machine then bright, smart, stupid or clever? If we define intelligence as a likeness to the human mind, the human characteristics that Webster faile d to capture in its definition, are encompassed in a separate humanistic definition of intelligence. However, where Webster and Encarta are likewise broad, the humanistic definition may be too tight. It is commonly concur that humans are all intelligent beings, however it does not of necessity follow that humans are the only intelligent beings. Therefore by defining intelligence in such a way one could be ruling out different forms of intelligence that are intelligent by nature, but then not by definition.