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

by dhw, Saturday, August 28, 2010, 09:22 (5200 days ago) @ romansh

ROMANSH: I'm not sure what consciousness is, and perhaps we can replace it with a word like "awareness". -In all definitions we use different words to explain the original word, and you might just as well replace awareness with "consciousness". Although none of us know how consciousness actually works, let me suggest that it is a state in which one is awake, aware of oneself, and aware of what is going on around oneself. Susan Blackmore can agonize as much as she likes over when and whether she is conscious, but since our subject is the nature of intelligence, and I regard consciousness as an integral element of intelligence, this attempt at a definition can at least provide a basis for understanding. You wrote: "It is not whether I can accept a definition or not. It's more about understanding one another's point of view." Indeed. But definitions are a useful way of explaining one's point of view.-I wrote that you and I could probably agree that we are more intelligent than bricks. You responded (rather nicely): "Most days I would agree: joke." I would take that one step further, however, and venture to say that if I asked a dozen people at random whether they thought a brick was intelligent, they would laugh out loud. But if you and your professor argue that a brick IS intelligent because it can synthesize a response with a stimulus, no-one can say you are wrong. You just have a different understanding of the term from mine. And even if you and the professor find that you are outvoted by a billion to two, it still won't mean you're wrong. As you say: "I don't think any particular definition is right or wrong per se. The definitions we choose are just that." By the same token, if I believe in Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot, that is my choice. However, without some sort of consensus on language, communication becomes almost impossible.-I wrote: "we are moving onto a philosophical level beyond that of mere common sense." You responded: "I'm not sure what we were discussing if it is not philosophy? Now last time I checked science is at least part of philosophy?" What we are discussing is indeed philosophy, and I meant that we had moved onto a philosophical level beyond the philosophical level of mere common sense. However, the argument that science is part of philosophy is another problem of definition, which I did discuss earlier with George. You can argue that philosophy = every branch of human knowledge, in which case you are right. Or you can argue that science = the natural sciences (e.g. physics, chemistry, biology etc.) while philosophy = the non-physical branches of knowledge, such as epistemology, ethics, metaphysics etc. One would not expect a degree course in philosophy to include exam papers on the four levels of protein structure, and one would not expect a degree course in chemistry to include exam papers on the Kantian contrast between the noumenon and the phenomenon. -You wrote: "Also some of the answers posted here to me imply that we must have free will?" Am I being intelligent in my observation?" The very fact that you have read, interpreted and commented on some of the answers indicates to me that you have "a conscious ability to perceive, learn, understand and think about things, and to apply the knowledge thereby acquired." According to my definition, then, rest assured ... your observation denotes that you are intelligent!