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

by romansh , Saturday, August 28, 2010, 16:53 (5200 days ago) @ dhw

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. 
I don't think we are too far apart here.
>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.-But is it not necessary to understand what conscious is or is not if we want to use it as a part of our definition of intelligence? While some of us may not agree or like Susan, I did find her "agonizing" and accurate approximation of what I experience. Don't get me wrong I have no intention of going all Buddhist. I have no reason to believe anybody elses experience is different to mine, though I am happy to hear to the contrary.->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 suspect my use of the word intelligence in everyday parlance is not disimilar to anyone elses. But the title of this thread What Exactly IS Intelligence? leads me to examine this concept a little more closely.-> 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. -I agree; my use of the word philosophy may be a little archaic. But they do hand out PhDs to all sorts of non philosophers. Also I would be highly suspicious of any philosopher who studies noumena without reference to the latest neurological science?-> 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!-It was bit of a rhetorical question. Again but, to use some of the definitions used so far, to me, implies a belief in free will.-I suppose my point is: there's a lot of believing going on considering this is an agnostic website?