[Baby Astronaut]

kitkat, on 25 November 2011 - 04:16 PM, said:

I liked your definition and the only word I question is how do you define "beings" in your post?

Well, "being" is too specific. Maybe we can use a phrase that's closer to meaning "object" but it covers more:

An energetic form's ability to perceive and compartmentalize various instances of time, space, and energy and to blend information perceived about those into a unique and coherent structure that the form can use elsewhere for problem-solving and/or to extend or protect its existence in various other familiar/unfamiliar environments and even if some of the information it has perceived and/or retained was incomplete.

[Mrs Zeta]

I am not referring to making any rational choices. It would simply be the correct choice for a specific situation, when faced with a problem that needs resolving. And this does not only refer to humans but to any agent (living organisms, swarming bacteria, or even non-living agents, such as the Global Brain or search engines)

This post has been edited by Mrs Zeta: 30 November 2011 - 07:33 PM

[kitkat]

Baby Astronaut, on 29 November 2011 - 05:43 AM, said:

Well, "being" is too specific. Maybe we can use a phrase that's closer to meaning "object" but it covers more:

An energetic form's ability to perceive and compartmentalize various instances of time, space, and energy and to blend information perceived about those into a unique and coherent structure that the form can use elsewhere for problem-solving and/or to extend or protect its existence in various other familiar/unfamiliar environments and even if some of the information it has perceived and/or retained was incomplete.

I like it.

[mooeypoo]

Mrs Zeta, on 30 November 2011 - 07:31 PM, said:

I am not referring to making any rational choices. It would simply be the correct choice for a specific situation, when faced with a problem that needs resolving. And this does not only refer to humans but to any agent (living organisms, swarming bacteria, or even non-living agents, such as the Global Brain or search engines)

Defining "correct choice" is a problem on its own. I don't think it's as trivial as you seem to make it sound. There might be many correct choices, in fact most situations are probably with 10 correct choice, and we only know what was "correct" after the fact when we look back.

But I digress.

My point still stands: people with perception problems (OCD included) cannot make "the correct" choice. That's the point.

That's how you get Hoarders who don't throw away their trash because they have personal connection with it. You give them a choice between keeping the half-rotten piece of banana that's full of gnats, and they might tell you that it's still good (ever watched "Hoarders" ?) -- I don't think you'll find many people to consider this the "right" choice, or a person like this as having the ability to make "right choices". You see what I mean?

The correct choice would be to toss out the garbage that rats feed off of, for your health and sanity. The correct choice would be to not get into debt over massive amount of crap they don't need.

They seem to have a condition that makes them UNABLE of making those 'right' choices (at least not without some mental help). They need to get help, and sometimes get long-term help.

Not to mention people with more severe mental illnesses like schizophrenia. A lot of them are unable to make "right" choices by definition. I believe there are a few examples of famous scientists who had that problem.

Are these people outside the definition of intelligence?



I see what you're trying to say, Mrs Zeta, I am simply trying to point out I think your definition is still insufficient.

[Mrs Zeta]

mooeypoo, on 1 December 2011 - 03:40 AM, said:

Defining "correct choice" is a problem on its own. I don't think it's as trivial as you seem to make it sound. There might be many correct choices, in fact most situations are probably with 10 correct choice, and we only know what was "correct" after the fact when we look back.

But I digress.

My point still stands: people with perception problems (OCD included) cannot make "the correct" choice. That's the point.

That's how you get Hoarders who don't throw away their trash because they have personal connection with it. You give them a choice between keeping the half-rotten piece of banana that's full of gnats, and they might tell you that it's still good (ever watched "Hoarders" ?) -- I don't think you'll find many people to consider this the "right" choice, or a person like this as having the ability to make "right choices". You see what I mean?

The correct choice would be to toss out the garbage that rats feed off of, for your health and sanity. The correct choice would be to not get into debt over massive amount of crap they don't need.

They seem to have a condition that makes them UNABLE of making those 'right' choices (at least not without some mental help). They need to get help, and sometimes get long-term help.

Not to mention people with more severe mental illnesses like schizophrenia. A lot of them are unable to make "right" choices by definition. I believe there are a few examples of famous scientists who had that problem.

Are these people outside the definition of intelligence?



I see what you're trying to say, Mrs Zeta, I am simply trying to point out I think your definition is still insufficient.

Don't forget that my definition is about making the correct selection from a list of suitable choices. This means that anybody (or any thing) that can do this, is defined as 'intelligent'. However, you could have low intelligence, high intelligence, medium, mild, extreme, very low etc...i.e different degrees of intelligence. An ant that has chosen correctly to turn right instead of left, has just made an intelligent decision. A schizophrenic who has correctly chosen to do this instead of that, has made an intelligent decision. The total sum of appropriate decisions/selections corresponds to the degree of intelligence. Conventionally, those who consistently make most (if not all) the correct choices, are considered as - very- intelligent. Mental illness does not have to play a part.

[EJ.August]

It looks like this thread has died down, but I had a few thoughts:

As for the title of this thread, personally, I don't think it is possible to define intelligence in a simplistic way at this point in time. Intelligent beings may not be qualified to define their own intelligence objectively (a conflict of interest, as someone said earlier... current understanding of intelligence already assumes that we are the most intelligent beings encountered, and bases measurements of animal intelligence on that) while at the same time, we require intelligent beings to define what an intelligent being is ... which again, they may not be able to do objectively ... it's a paradox.

A biological explanation for intelligence might solve the paradox, but that will require more insight into the way that brains function than we currently have. For now, we rely on observation of patterns to identify intelligence. With that ... some patterns in nature are familiar to our way of thinking and might seem like applications of intelligence when they actually are not (for example, a process like evolution seems to progress intelligently until you really understand what's going on) Similarly, you could conclude that some applications of intelligence may be so alien to us, that we wouldn't consider it as such (for instance, if a theoretical animal on earth was to possess a greater intelligence than us but not apply it to tool-making and talking, as humans do, or if it is not at all self-aware, we would never define it as intelligence until we explained intelligence biologically, and it was shown to biologically exist in their brains)

To assume our way of using intelligent reasoning is flawless and 100% objective would be a rather large assumption, seeing as we can't step outside our brain structure to know for sure. We intuitively believe ourselves to be the most intelligent creature on earth, and so we intuitively define intelligence as being human-like ... and that other creatures must behave like us in some way or have brain/body measurements like us to have any measurable intelligence. So a short definition of intelligence might be 'human-like behavior' and any use of intelligence in a non-human way would require a new word all together, with it's own, separate definition.

[Santalum]

kitkat, on 3 November 2011 - 03:40 PM, said:

People cannot agree on how to define "intelligence" and this is a problem with accepting it to explain biological processes. Why can't we simply explain it as an emergent property of memory capable cells that can alter their properties that enable them to counteract the actions of circumstances where they previously were restricted to be enslaved to the changing bioactivity of its environment. It is through experience and trying different alternatives that we can find the best solution to overcome a repetative problem so why isn't this view shared at the molecular level that as a whole perform the same methods of problem solving just like we do at our level?

From Wikipedia

Quote

from "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" (1994), an editorial statement by fifty-two researchers: A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.^[5]

It seems clear to me from this definition that consciousness is a pre-requisit of intelligence.

Does this help us folks?

[Ophiolite]

Santalum, on 30 January 2012 - 12:18 AM, said:

It seems clear to me from this definition that consciousness is a pre-requisit of intelligence.

Does this help us folks?

Only, perhaps, in regard to human intelligence. There is abundant evidence of intelligence beyond homo sapiens.

[Santalum]

Ophiolite, on 31 January 2012 - 08:35 AM, said:

Only, perhaps, in regard to human intelligence. There is abundant evidence of intelligence beyond homo sapiens.

Agreed. But all those other species have one thing in common with humans - consciousness.