What Defines Basic Intelligence and When Does It Become Unintelligent?

[PIT2]

I know its tricky to define intelligence, but the issue*[/color] came up in another topic and i want to know what intelligence is in its most simple and abstract form. At what point does something intelligent become unintelligent, or vice versa.



*the issue in the other topic was about whether all living organisms are intelligent in some sense.[/color]

 

[TheCavortr]

Is it Howard Gardner that has the Multiple Intellegences Theory? Intellegence is just a word. Quantifying intellegence assumes there exist some objective criterea for exactly what intellegnece is.

He classifies seven (it might be eight now) main types. Here we go:

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm

1. Lingustic 2. Logical-mathematical 3. Musical 4. Bodily-Kinesthetic 5. Spatial 6. Interpersonal 7. Intrapersonal

 

[PIT2]

Thanks that's very interesting.
I can see many of those types are only present in humans and a few other animals(dolphins, chimps, etc.), but perhaps the bodily-kinesthetic intelligence can be found in all lifeforms.

Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence entails the potential of using one's whole body or parts of the body to solve problems. It is the ability to use mental abilities to coordinate bodily movements. Howard Gardner sees mental and physical activity as related.

 

[DaveC426913]

So, the Archerfish (Toxotes chatareus), which can shoot an insect off a leaf at a distance dozens of times its own body-length is one of the most intelligent creatures on the Earth?

Go figure.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think the definition of intelligence must be closely linked with an ability to adapt existing information to new circumstances. (In one fell swoop, this eliminates all instinctual skills).

 

[Doctordick]

Hi Dave,

It seems to me that the fundamental definition of intelligence is that it is a measure of one's ability to perform with new information. That is, if exactly the same information is available to two different people, the one who can make better use of that information is the more intelligent of the two. It is the difficulty of assuring that both parties are in possession of exactly the same information which makes intelligence so difficult to measure. In the early years of education, it is commonly presumed that all the students have the same education (and thus the same information available to everyone) that makes it reasonable to "measure intelligence".

On the other hand, for young people, the amount of understanding they have managed to pick up from their formal education is often presumed to be related to their intelligence. This is really just another justification behind what are ordinarily called "intelligence tests". Note that this is the argument behind IQ: i.e., intelligence quotient which is mental age divided by physical age. One rather strange consequence of that definition is that some one at the age of 80 with the mental acuity of a 20 year old has an IQ of 25, not too impressive. However, all this leads me to one of my favorite quotes:

"Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity".

Think about that while noting that almost all breakthroughs in science are made by youngsters. One would expect breakthroughs to be made by those with the most knowledge wouldn't one?

Have fun -- Dick

 

[PIT2]

I think the definition of intelligence must be closely linked with an ability to adapt existing information to new circumstances. (In one fell swoop, this eliminates all instinctual skills).

Can u explain why it eliminates instinctual skills?
Because they don't adapt to new circumstances?

 

[kmarinas86]

From the book Geniocracy:

Before going any further, we must define what we mean by intelligence. According to G. Viaud, "All acts of intelligence are characterized by an understanding of the relations between the given elements of a situation and an invention of what needs to be done using these elements in order to solve the problem and achieve the goal."
This definition is one of those which corresponds best to the type of intelligence in which we are interested, and it confirms what the majority of psychologists propose: "Intelligence is the capacity to use given information in a relevant way to a particular situation."

 

[Doctordick]

Can u explain why it eliminates instinctual skills?
Because they don't adapt to new circumstances?

Instinctual skills are normally thought of as acquired by evolution: i.e. those who don't have the skills don't make it. The adaptation isn't a choice made by conscious analysis of the circumstance and I don't think the idea of "unconscious" intelligence holds any water. I think DaveC is referring to circumstances not seen before when he uses the phrase "new circumstance".

From kmarinas86:

"Intelligence is the capacity to use given information in a relevant way to a particular situation."

So, I also ask, does that not make the Archerfish (Toxotes chatareus), which can shoot an insect off a leaf at a distance dozens of times its own body-length is one of the most intelligent creatures on the Earth? He certainly seems to have "the capacity to use given information in a relevant way to a particular situation." Don't you all think there is something missing here?

Have fun -- Dick

"Knowledge is Power"

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

 

[DaveC426913]

I think DaveC is referring to circumstances not seen before when he uses the phrase "new circumstance".

Yes.

So, I also ask, does that not make the Archerfish (Toxotes chatareus), which can shoot an insect off a leaf at a distance dozens of times its own body-length is one of the most intelligent creatures on the Earth? He certainly seems to have "the capacity to use given information in a relevant way to a particular situation." Don't you all think there is something missing here?

No, the above definition could apply to instinct just as well.

But look at the statement before (post #8 by kmarinas86):

"...invention of what needs to be done using these elements in order to solve the problem..."

Note keywords.

The key to intelligence is the application to new, unfamiliar circumstances.

 

[Doctordick]

No, the above definition could apply to instinct just as well.

I don't understand your "No". When I said, "Don't you all think there is something missing here?"; I was referring to the statement, "Intelligence is the capacity to use given information in a relevant way to a particular situation", which, as you say, "could apply to instinct just as well". I think you misunderstood what I was saying. It seems to me that you and I agree on all points.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Rader]

The key to intelligence is the application to new, unfamiliar circumstances.

I like this definition. I was to a conference in Almuñécar Spain headed by Juan Pérez Merceder last September. It had quite a large group of scientists there to talk on each of there areas of research. The theme was astrobiology, looking for life, outside of the Earth. There were several who hit on the subject of intelligence. As would be expected each has its own opinion depending on there line of work. There is a team of scientists that do research in Rio Tinto on gene studies to develop machinery to detect possible life forms on future missions to Mars. The machinery will scan soil samples to detect and compare gene sequences that we know here on Earth. The interesting thing that they found out during the studies and development is that, like bacteria modify there genes to survive in diverse soil conditions of acidity and alkalinity within a very small environment and timescale. So this simple means that they modify there internal structures to survive. Modification of internal structures are, then the genes themselves, which in turn, on a lower level is different combinations of bonding of atoms that form these molecules. Using your definition clearly marks what might be intelligent. What’s not clear is why application of new and unfamiliar circumstance would be intelligent. Why those choices?

 

[Dichter]

I know its tricky to define intelligence, but the issue*[/color] came up in another topic and i want to know what intelligence is in its most simple and abstract form. At what point does something intelligent become unintelligent, or vice versa.

At least in principle, that should be simple. If we use the word 'intelligent' so often, we should know what it means, right?

In its simplest form, I think intelligence is the ability to acquire and use a language. Notice how everything we label as the product of intelligent behavior is always expressed in language - things like scientific theories, poems, philosophical teatrises, and so on.

Notice also that intelligence has nothing to do with skill at performing a task. We don't usually call great performers, great athletes, great artists "intelligent", unless we are referring to something they say.

the issue in the other topic was about whether all living organisms are intelligent in some sense.

I think this is really an attempt to redefine intelligence so that it ceases to be restricted to linguistic ability. We would certainly not have trouble calling any animal "intelligent" if it could understand a few words in English. Also, scientists have a strong tendency to search for linguistic abilities in animals of extraordinary skills.

 

[PIT2]

At least in principle, that should be simple. If we use the word 'intelligent' so often, we should know what it means, right?

In its simplest form, I think intelligence is the ability to acquire and use a language. Notice how everything we label as the product of intelligent behavior is always expressed in language - things like scientific theories, poems, philosophical teatrises, and so on.

Why language?
And what constitutes as a language anyway?

If people do not think in any language, but in imagery, and accomplish the same tasks as people who think in language, is that then not a form of intelligence?

Notice also that intelligence has nothing to do with skill at performing a task. We don't usually call great performers, great athletes, great artists "intelligent", unless we are referring to something they say.

I wouldn't be so sure about that, some of these are often called geniuses. Besides i don't want to stop at what is called 'intelligence' in everyday popular speak, but go a little further into it.

 

[PIT2]

From kmarinas86:
So, I also ask, does that not make the Archerfish (Toxotes chatareus), which can shoot an insect off a leaf at a distance dozens of times its own body-length is one of the most intelligent creatures on the Earth? He certainly seems to have "the capacity to use given information in a relevant way to a particular situation." Don't you all think there is something missing here?

I would say that it does make the archerfish intelligent. However, not one of the most intelligent creatures. Exactly how we can determine which behaviours are more intelligent than other behaviours i don't know, but the versatility of the behaviour may be an indicator since it says something about the understanding the organism has of different situations.

For example, how does the archerfish behave when it is not an insect on a leaf, but a rock on a leaf. And what if the insect is behind a piece of glass. Would the archerfish understand these situations?

 

[kmarinas86]

Dogs can learn english (or jibberish if you give it the chance), though parrots can learn it better. Parrots can learn colors and shapes. Dolphins and parrots can count. Infact, some dolphins can count in their head faster than most humans. Parrots can learn english, why not words from different languages as well? The parrot probably wouldn't notice the difference, however. Very few dogs can speak. On America's funniest home videos, I've this seen dog say "Hello", with a dog's accent of course.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Parrots can learn to mimic English speech, but it remains to be shown that the understand any of it. Dogs can't mimic (normally, circus acts apart), but they do seem to grasp your meaning in some contexts.

 

[arildno]

Not only seem.
They are highly perceptive of such essential features of the language like tone, rythm, and the manner in which words are spoken. (Along with certain word recognitions.
Some would contend that these features rather belongs to PRE-languages, rather than languages, but however you view them, they should be regarded as crucial elements in how languages were constructed in the first place.
As evidence of that, it suffices to point to the fact that the tone and manner are still sources of meaning for us (not to mention animals!) in daily communication. Since they usually provoke emotions or gut feelings in the listener rather than abstractly comprehended meanings, they should be regarded as a primitive and original means of communication.

 

[quantumcarl]

I know its tricky to define intelligence, but the issue*[/color] came up in another topic and i want to know what intelligence is in its most simple and abstract form. At what point does something intelligent become unintelligent, or vice versa.




*the issue in the other topic was about whether all living organisms are intelligent in some sense.[/color]

This phrase may uphold the idea that everything, all of nature holds a certain amount of intelligence because if nature didn't... how would anyone "gather intelligence" from her?

Does "gathering intelligence" literally mean harvesting intelligence from nature... or does it imply projecting our ideas and constructs of intelligence on nature then deciding (in error) that nature is intelligent. I would choose the former.

 

[moving finger]

Scanning the last few posts on this thread - learning languages, colours, shapes, counting, understanding English, perception of tone and rhythm, sources of meaning, communication…… does any of this entail intelligence? I think not.

Intelligence, imho, is simply the ability to solve new problems.

Best Regards

 

[sneez]

"Intelligence, imho, is simply the ability to solve new problems."

what constitues 'solving' and what constitues 'problem'?

 

[PIT2]

"Intelligence, imho, is simply the ability to solve new problems."

what constitues 'solving' and what constitues 'problem'?

And i was just about to ask what constitutes 'new'. Or in other words, in what sense does a problem need to be new. For example, does 'new' mean that the 'old' problems have become instinctual / automatic (which would mean that they arent really problems anymore...), or that the previously used solution to the old problem can be remembered by the organism (or something else)?

 

[moving finger]

Problem = a discrepancy between an existing and a desired state of affairs

To solve a problem = to successfully find ways to achieve the goal of the desired state of affairs, by removing or eliminating or overcoming the discrepancies between existing and desired states of affairs

I agree we could probably dispense wth the adjective "new" without altering the intended meaning.

In which case the definition of "intelligence" becomes :

The ability to successfully find ways to achieve the goals of the desired states of affairs by removing or eliminating or overcoming the discrepancies between existing and desired states of affairs.

Best Regards

 

[sneez]

In which case the definition of "intelligence" becomes :

The ability to successfully find ways to achieve the goals of the desired states of affairs by removing or eliminating or overcoming the discrepancies between existing and desired states of affairs.

now this sound pretty reasonable concept...

Do you think that desire is priori to intelligence? (desire will become the issue of definition. What is special about desire that its pre-requisite to inteligence)

Im not sure if u follow thread on DNA (on philosophy forum) which has stricken me in awe, but according to your definition of intelligence DNA in on itself is intelligent. (of cause if we can prove it has desires). Otherwise, it does meet all the other requirements of intelligence as defined by you.

Does it mean unless we can prove a desire in consecutive steps taken by an organism (or a thing) we shall not consider it intelligent? (if so how do you go about proving desire in the behavior)

what are ur thought on this?

 

[moving finger]

now this sound pretty reasonable concept...

Do you think that desire is priori to intelligence? (desire will become the issue of definition. What is special about desire that its pre-requisite to inteligence)

One could replace "desired" with "intended". For an agent to exhibit intelligence, that agent would first need to have some goals/objectives/purpose/intentions (either self-regulated goals, or externally set goals).

Im not sure if u follow thread on DNA (on philosophy forum) which has stricken me in awe, but according to your definition of intelligence DNA in on itself is intelligent. (of cause if we can prove it has desires). Otherwise, it does meet all the other requirements of intelligence as defined by you.

That's the point - I doubt if we can show that DNA has any goals/objectives/purpose/intentions.

Does it mean unless we can prove a desire in consecutive steps taken by an organism (or a thing) we shall not consider it intelligent? (if so how do you go about proving desire in the behavior)

what are ur thought on this?

Yes, imho an agent cannot be considered intelligent if it does not have something which is "driving" it to act in a certain way rather than another way - this "drive" may go under the guise of desire/goals/objectives/purpose/intentions. I don't see how a completely mindless piece of DNA can have these properties, therefore I don't see how we can class it as intelligent.

DNA does not have a goal or an objective, therefore it cannot do anything in respect of minimising or overcoming the dscrepancy between the objective state of affairs and the existing state of affairs.

Best Regards

 

[sneez]

Yes, imho an agent cannot be considered intelligent if it does not have something which is "driving" it to act in a certain way rather than another way - this "drive" may go under the guise of desire/goals/objectives/purpose/intentions. I don't see how a completely mindless piece of DNA can have these properties, therefore I don't see how we can class it as intelligent.

but how do you prove DNA does not have desires/goals/objectives/purpose/intentions ?

and on top of that,are not desires/goals/objectives/purpose/intentions the same thing? I mean, intrinsically, those words have no existence in nature appart from our mind. Otherwise, nature itself is inteligent since it would have any/all/some of those if we had such qualities inherently by nature.

So, if we are part of nature, we are not inteligent by our own merit of existence. We can only think of ourself as inteligent which is pretty arbitrary and existent in our mind only.

MOre to the point, since we are programmed and determined by DNA we are not inteligent. Unless we settle for emergence of inteligence out of complexity and non-linearity (i know hard core science does not take those much serious)

desires/goals/objectives/purpose/intentions - are our inventions (our brain).. Nobody give you those (nature does not) , we as ppl define them arbitrarily based on our time (culture).

so see not our definition of inteligence very strong if we insist that we are inteligent. (it just might be that the word inteligent is just in our brain confusing us, nature is not inteligent as we can hold)

if we could write computer programs in stone age and emarked on programing AI its requirements would be different than today and of tommorow..

ur thought...?

 

[moving finger]

but how do you prove DNA does not have desires/goals/objectives/purpose/intentions ?

It's a rational assumption. Do we have any evidence, either empirical or logical, to suppose that DNA has desires/goals/objectives/purpose/intentions ? No? Then why should one assume it does?

and on top of that,are not desires/goals/objectives/purpose/intentions the same thing?

There are subtle differences, but I agree there are similarities which is why I lumped them together.

I mean, intrinsically, those words have no existence in nature appart from our mind.

Does any word have "existence in nature appart from our mind"?

Otherwise, nature itself is inteligent since it would have any/all/some of those if we had such qualities inherently by nature.

If you think there is good reason to suppose that nature has desires/goals/objectives/purpose/intentions perhaps you could present the evidence/reasoning?

So, if we are part of nature, we are not inteligent by our own merit of existence. We can only think of ourself as inteligent which is pretty arbitrary and existent in our mind only.

Doesn't everything in your world ultimately rest upon your conscious perception?

MOre to the point, since we are programmed and determined by DNA we are not inteligent.

Why does this follow?

Unless we settle for emergence of inteligence out of complexity and non-linearity (i know hard core science does not take those much serious)

You do? Then you are mistaken. There is no other explanation for things such as consciousness and intelligence except in terms of emergent phenomena. Emergent phenomena are accepted by "hardcore science" as you put it.

desires/goals/objectives/purpose/intentions - are our inventions (our brain).. Nobody give you those (nature does not) , we as ppl define them arbitrarily based on our time (culture).

Does that mean they have no meaning?

so see not our definition of inteligence very strong if we insist that we are inteligent. (it just might be that the word inteligent is just in our brain confusing us, nature is not inteligent as we can hold)

Everything within your conscious perception of the world is a creation of your brain. This fact does not invalidate your conscious perception.

if we could write computer programs in stone age and emarked on programing AI its requirements would be different than today and of tommorow..

Yes... and what does this prove?

Best Regards

 

[superalterego]

Is an ant that seeks and retrieves food intelligently doing so or is it simply following it's program. To me ants are very robotic in nature in as much that they appear to follow a simple program of logic. I.e does this taste like food... yes... return to nest with it. The way ants navigate using sunlight and smell isn't something they learn. Is it?

For me, true intelligence is like the character of a person. AN accumulation many smaller factors that build up to form the whole.

 

[octelcogopod]

What if we are also robotic, following our senses and memories but it's so complex to us we cannot see the patterns or underlying logic?

THat's how I think it is.

 

[superalterego]

What if we are also robotic, following our senses and memories but it's so complex to us we cannot see the patterns or underlying logic?

THat's how I think it is.

Does an Ant have memories to act upon in the first instance. Once it hatches from the egg, what does it learn? How does it learn? Personally I think it hatches with it's orders and carries them out. I think that the Ant knows how to track and retrieve food from the offset. Just like a human infant knows how to suckle from the offset.

For the physical function of the body, then, yes I agree.

Whether it's an ant, antelope or human. We all have a physical form which I often refer to as "machine" that is fundamentally controlled/operated by the brain just like the modern car engine is computer governed.

All machinery needs a centre of control be it chemical, electrical or otherwise in order to function effectively and orderly i.e not randomly. What sets us apart from the ant is that we have the ability to apply logic that can override the program of instinct ...it's called choice. Is this one part of the brain overriding the other? I don't believe it is. I think it's something else working in conjuntion with the brain.

Besides, we can see the patterns and underlying logic in human behaviour... it's called psychology.