[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

What is it about human communication that you consider non-mechanical?

I never made a claim either way. I'm using "machine intelligence" to distinguish from biological intelligence. I just don't particularly like the term "artificial intelligence".

Do you think human level intelligence is required for communcation or do the almost entirely instinctive communcations of insects (such as ants) count as communication?

Yes, I do consider that communication, but I believe there is a difference between such animal communication and human communication. Whether that difference is qualitative or quantitative (i.e., does an ant think in an entirely different fashion, or is it just a matter of degree) is another wrinkle, but I tend to work with the axiom that there is a distinction either way. So to answer your question, if the goal is to match or surpass human intelligence, then I think an AI creation would have to be capable of at least human-level communication (not necessarily in structure, but in concept).

Before supposing to limit the conceptual self-awareness of mechanical intelligence (if that is, in fact, something distinct from human) is the fact that we have little visibility in the physical workings of our brain an inherent limitation or just something we haven't figured out yet?

Perhaps an impossible question to answer right now, but I'm going with inherent limitation. It falls into the Goedelian dilemna of a system examining itself.