What Exactly IS Intelligence? (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Thursday, August 19, 2010, 16:50 (5209 days ago) @ romansh

I have made an attempt to define intelligence as "a conscious ability to perceive, learn, understand and think about things, and to apply the knowledge thereby acquired." Romansh thinks this is a very anthropic definition, and also asks "at which point does a human being become intelligent or is it a grey scale extending back in time?"-The starting point of this thread was Matt's question concerning a Universal Intelligence "wholly different" from ours ... in contrast to my own view that if there is such a thing as a UI, its intelligence will be much the same as ours but immeasurably more advanced. My own definition therefore has to take in the UI, and it also has to take in the implications of your question. Intelligence as I've defined it is absolutely not confined to humans. I believe ... as I'm sure you do ... that we are animals descended from earlier forms of animal, and just as the hypothetical UI's intelligence would be more advanced than ours, I would argue that our human intelligence is more advanced than that of other animals. But its fundamental nature is the same: a conscious ability etc. Now of course we can't know for sure (see our discussion on knowledge) that the brick doesn't perceive and feel and think in its own way, but for us to have a meaningful discussion, we have to draw a line somewhere, and since a brick is a man-made object without any of the accoutrements that we associate with thought, perhaps we can agree that on a scale of 0-10 in the intelligence rankings, it achieves 0. -The gadgetry in a car does indeed meet your definition, but it doesn't meet mine, and it doesn't meet your own conclusion that our concept of intelligence is "deeply entwined" with consciousness. Of course our concept is anthropic, in that the word "intelligence" is a human invention designed ... like all our language ... to denote a portion of the world we live in and (think we) know. But as humans all you and I are doing now is simply trying to explain what we're referring to when we use the term. I use it to denote those qualities I've listed (but am open to other suggestions).-What I see as a far more difficult problem is to gauge what elements of intelligence ... as I've defined it ... are present in other forms. We probably agree about the brick, but what about plant life, funguses (see David's Ain't nature wonderful), insects?*** Up and up we go along the chain, which takes us to a slightly different question from yours: I wouldn't ask at which point a human being becomes intelligent, but at what point do we say that ANYTHING becomes intelligent? The implications of this are vast. Plants, funguses etc. have the most ingenious ways of solving problems (going back to George's definition), but if we are convinced that they have no consciousness, no ability to think about things etc., what is the source of their instinctive problem-solving ability? You may say (loosely?) that your car gadgetry is intelligent, but I would say the intelligence actually comes from the person who designed the mechanism. David Turell would, I think, argue that the "intelligence" of the fungus goes back to the designer of the mechanisms that eventually gave rise to the fungus and its behaviour. But that of course raises a host of other questions...-*** I see you've raised a similar point in your response to Matt. You compare a brick and an amoeba, and ask which is more intelligent. Following the definition I've offered, I don't see any way round our subjective perceptions here: what degree of consciousness do you personally attribute to a brick or to an amoeba? If we follow your definition,I'm afraid I'll have to agree with Matt that it allows for some silly formulations (e.g. that a brick has a degree of intelligence). As regards the amoeba, does your definition allow for any distinction between intelligence and instinct?