Is 'Grouping' Intelligence Possible?

[Kherubin]

I recently read a book on the theory of intelligence by Jeff Hawkins aptly titled 'On Intelligence' which I highly recommend. In it, Hawkins posits that the basis of human intelligence lies in the hierarchical structure of the neocortex.

How does the brain work?
The seat of intelligence is the neocortex. Even though it has a great number of abilities and powerful flexibility, the neocortex is surprisingly regular in its structural details. The different parts of the neocortex, whether they are responsible for vision, hearing, touch, or language, all work on the same principles. The key to understanding the neocortex is understanding these common principles and, in particular, its hierarchical structure. We will examine the neocortex in sufficient detail to show how its structure captures the structure of the world. -- On Intelligence

Reading this book started me thinking about whether human intelligence is actually just one among many possible intelligences, or whether that is, in actuality, a contradiction in terms. Is human intelligence, by definition, the only kind that can exist?


Further to this, I would like to generalize the question even more. I think one of the myriad reasons intelligence fascinates us is because it appears that an esoteric, abstract phenomena arises from a, albeit complex, material predicate.

Along these lines, I have been wondering whether intelligence itself belongs to a 'set' (in the mathematical sense) of other potential physical phenomena. I am interested in what form this 'set' would take along with the other 'members' of the grouping. Perhaps intelligence is one of many, seemingly 'abstract' phenomena which can arise from the complex organization of matter.

I would like to hear the thoughts of others on this matter, and apologize if my musings are a little 'out there' for some people.

All the best, and happy philosophizing,
Kherubin

 

[wuliheron]

Intelligence has several definitions and without clarification its difficult to tell what you are asking. The author appears to be talking about higher reasoning which is something the neocortex is famous for, while exactly what you mean is unclear. For example, wikipedia describes intelligence as referring to "...abstract thought, understanding, communication, reasoning, learning, planning, emotional intelligence and problem solving. Thus we might say a computer program has a certain amount of intelligence and mean something very different from when we talk about a person.

 

[Kherubin]

Sorry, but my thoughts on this matter are a bit difficult to articulate, because these concepts are so esoteric in themselves.

Thus we might say a computer program has a certain amount of intelligence and mean something very different from when we talk about a person.

Exactly! By the above definition of intelligence, it could be fair to say that computer programs have a limited form of 'intelligence' and that that form of intelligence is distinct from a human being's.

I suppose the easiest way to rephrase the small-scale, narrower aspect of my question is to resort to the 'alien worlds' tactic used in other philosophical arguments, i.e. if aliens evolved on a planet far removed from ours, would they have the same 'intelligence' we do?

Our intelligence seems to have evolved to be a superior pattern-recognition tool. My question is: is this (pattern-recognition) what intelligence is (as Jeff Hawkins posits in his book)? Or could other potential forms of intelligence exist that are built on different principles? I grasp that this somewhat becomes a question of semantics, depending on how you define intelligence and with a sufficiently generalized definition, everything could come under its remit, but I was simply inquisitive as to other people's thoughts on how unique 'our' intelligence is.



The second part of my question is even more 'fantastical' and is dependent upon people's beliefs on the extent to which the brain is the material predicate of the mind. If, however, you are a materialist, like me, it seems reasonable to ask whether or not intelligence/consciousness is just one seemingly abstract entity among many which can be produced by the complex arrangement of matter. If we arranged matter in other complicated manners, what kind of other 'ethereal' phenomena may arise.

I know that with our current, limited understanding of the universe, the second question is somewhat unreasonable, but I just wanted to give others the opportunity to imagine the possibilities.


Hope this helps,
Kherubin

 

[wuliheron]

Exactly! By the above definition of intelligence, it could be fair to say that computer programs have a limited form of 'intelligence' and that that form of intelligence is distinct from a human being's.

Our intelligence seems to have evolved to be a superior pattern-recognition tool. My question is: is this (pattern-recognition) what intelligence is (as Jeff Hawkins posits in his book)? Or could other potential forms of intelligence exist that are built on different principles? I grasp that this somewhat becomes a question of semantics, depending on how you define intelligence and with a sufficiently generalized definition, everything could come under its remit, but I was simply inquisitive as to other people's thoughts on how unique 'our' intelligence is.

That's as much a psychological question as it is a philosophical one and we just don't have a definitive psychology with which to even begin to debate the issue. In other words, its pretty much anyone's guess at this point.

The second part of my question is even more 'fantastical' and is dependent upon people's beliefs on the extent to which the brain is the material predicate of the mind. If, however, you are a materialist, like me, it seems reasonable to ask whether or not intelligence/consciousness is just one seemingly abstract entity among many which can be produced by the complex arrangement of matter. If we arranged matter in other complicated manners, what kind of other 'ethereal' phenomena may arise.

I know that with our current, limited understanding of the universe, the second question is somewhat unreasonable, but I just wanted to give others the opportunity to imagine the possibilities.


Hope this helps,
Kherubin

This sounds to me more like a metaphysical debate then anything else since we have no real criteria upon which to extrapolate.

 

[Kherubin]

That's as much a psychological question as it is a philosophical one and we just don't have a definitive psychology with which to even begin to debate the issue. In other words, its pretty much anyone's guess at this point.

I wholeheartedly agree, these sorts of questions lie at the very edge of our current knowledgebase, but I would still be interested to hear your and others' opinions on the matter.

Thanks,
Kherubin

 

[apeiron]

I recently read a book on the theory of intelligence by Jeff Hawkins aptly titled 'On Intelligence' which I highly recommend...Along these lines, I have been wondering whether intelligence itself belongs to a 'set' (in the mathematical sense) of other potential physical phenomena.

The essence of mind does always boil down to forward-modelling for the purpose of controlling reality. And this general need also generally generalises () to a hierarchical or systems view. Top-down contraints in interaction with bottom-up degrees of freedom.

So yes, generalising the notion of intelligence to a metaphysics, and even concrete mathematical models, is a project of many scientists and philosophers.

That is what Peircean semiotics, systems science, hierarchy theory, are all doing in various related ways.

Hawkins was kind of annoying orginally because he came out talking as if he had invented something. But he seems now to have discovered that many others were already thinking these things (and had got a lot further).

 

[Kherubin]

The essence of mind does always boil down to forward-modelling for the purpose of controlling reality.

By this you mean that all minds, and by extension brains, regardless of structure or origin, will take this form (i.e. that is what it is to have a mind at all)? Alien minds, whatever their material basis, will attempt to model reality in an effort to control it?

That would bring me then to my second question, which I concede may be unanswerable, do these 'forward-modeling' minds belong to a group of other seemingly abstract entities with material bases, with the other members of said group allowing for different processes than forward-modeling?

I grasp that my second question is tenuous, at best, but I'm simply interested in the products of others' imaginations since mine is so flimsy.

Thank you again,
Kherubin

 

[apeiron]

I grasp that my second question is tenuous, at best, but I'm simply interested in the products of others' imaginations since mine is so flimsy.

The question seems to hinge on the notion of "ethereal". You appear to mean a property of some material arrangement that does not seem particularly concrete or necessary, but rather epiphenomenal.

I guess people who believe in the singularity (or global brain, groupmind, noosphere) can imagine the internet coming alive and doing its own thing, having some kind of higher level stream of thinking and conversation with itself that is out of our reach. We would be able to sense the buzz of something going on, but that higher level has taken flight and become a realm of its own. Is that the kind of thing you mean?

 

[Frankly]

I think what youre asking is, are different 'flavors' of mind possible.

Is our consciousness uniquely human, or is it sort of a generic form of consciousness that any sufficiently sophisticated brain anywhere would experience, even if it evolved on another planet and its biology was unimaginably different from ours?

Do differently evolved brains produce different sorts of consciousness, or what you could call different subjective realities?

Is this what youre asking, or should I just honk my horn and trundle back to the lame jokes thread on my unicycle?

 

[Kherubin]

The question seems to hinge on the notion of "ethereal". You appear to mean a property of some material arrangement that does not seem particularly concrete or necessary, but rather epiphenomenal.

Is that the kind of thing you mean?

It absolutely depends on the notion of the 'ethereal'. I, as a materialist, consider the mind to be ultimately and entirely, a product of the brain. However, I think that one of the things that fascinates us so about the mind is the fact that it (in the form of consciousness) appears to be an abstract entity entirely divorced from its material predicate, the brain. From a personal point of view, this 'feels' as if the two are distinct.

This disparity 'feels' SO real that it allowed the philosophy of dualism to arise in the first place.

My question comes down to whether or not the mind is the only ethereal entity can arise from the complex organization of matter. I can conceive of lots of other complex forms of matter entirely different from the two pound lumps in our skull, and my question concerns whether any of these give rise to other, entirely diverse, 'ethereal' entities. To my mind , I can see no reason why human minds are special.

I think what you're asking is, are different 'flavors' of mind possible.

Is our consciousness uniquely human, or is it sort of a generic form of consciousness that any sufficiently sophisticated brain anywhere would experience, even if it evolved on another planet and its biology was unimaginably different from ours?

Do differently evolved brains produce different sorts of consciousness, or what you could call different subjective realities?

Is this what you're asking, or should I just honk my horn and trundle back to the lame jokes thread on my unicycle?

Exactly! I could not have put it better myself.

Please don't go back on your unicycle. These are precisely the kinds of questions I'm interested in.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It absolutely depends on the notion of the 'ethereal'. I, as a materialist, consider the mind to be ultimately and entirely, a product of the brain. However, I think that one of the things that fascinates us so about the mind is the fact that it (in the form of consciousness) appears to be an abstract entity entirely divorced from its material predicate, the brain. From a personal point of view, this 'feels' as if the two are distinct.

This disparity 'feels' SO real that it allowed the philosophy of dualism to arise in the first place.

My question comes down to whether or not the mind is the only ethereal entity can arise from the complex organization of matter. I can conceive of lots of other complex forms of matter entirely different from the two pound lumps in our skull, and my question concerns whether any of these give rise to other, entirely diverse, 'ethereal' entities. To my mind , I can see no reason why human minds are special.

You're looking for the term emergence, ethereal has too many mystical mumbo-jumbo associations. All evidence points to the brain as being the seat of the mind, the emergent property of human brain action is consciousness.

I'd be surprised if human consciousness was the only possible. The novel Blindsight deals with many of these issues. The bottom of the wikipedia page has a link to a free online copy released under creative commons.

 

[Kherubin]

Thank you for the link ryan_m_b.

You're looking for the term emergence, ethereal has too many mystical mumbo-jumbo associations.

I apologize. You're absolutely right, that sounds like a more useful term.

I guess the question I should then be asking is, are there any other 'emergent' properties which may arise from sufficiently complex arrangements of matter?

 

[Giantevilhead]

The problem is that there is no set definition for a lot of psychological concepts like intelligence so having a debate about intelligence is like having a debate about how many pounds a rock weighs when there's no widely accepted definition for "pound."

 

[apeiron]

The problem is that there is no set definition for a lot of psychological concepts like intelligence so having a debate about intelligence is like having a debate about how many pounds a rock weighs when there's no widely accepted definition for "pound."

So you don't agree on a definition based on the capacity to forward model reality - to anticipate the consequences of courses of action?

 

[Giantevilhead]

So you don't agree on a definition based on the capacity to forward model reality - to anticipate the consequences of courses of action?

It doesn't really matter whether or not I agree with a definition. What matters is that there has to be a standardized definition so that the word can be useful in conveying and analyzing information.

For example, I may think that the green spectrum of light should be between 550 to 480 nm but because the standardized definition of green is between 560 and 490 nm, I know that when someone says that the light is green, that the light is between 560 and 490 nm even if I don't subjectively view the light as being green.

It's the same thing with intelligence. It doesn't matter how good you think a definition is, what matters is that other people have to also use that definition. Without a standardized definition, what you call "intelligent" may be a completely different set of abilities and behaviors than what I call "intelligent," and that limits the usefulness of the word in conveying information.

 

[apeiron]

It doesn't really matter whether or not I agree with a definition. What matters is that there has to be a standardized definition so that the word can be useful in conveying and analyzing information.

Your point seems strained because clearly there is a difference between the complaint that our definitions of intelligence seem rather vague, and hence insufficiently crisp, and the separate complaint you make that "a definition does not even exist".

You may also be confounding measures of individual difference in intelligence (ie: IQ tests) with the generic idea of intelligence (as an ethereal or emergent property of a complex system) that was in fact the OP.

So we are talking about "intelligence" in the indeed rather vague and generic sense of a knowing, sentient, being.

For example, I may think that the green spectrum of light should be between 550 to 480 nm but because the standardized definition of green is between 560 and 490 nm, I know that when someone says that the light is green, that the light is between 560 and 490 nm even if I don't subjectively view the light as being green.

Where's the difficulty in allowing a 10 nm wiggle room here? If you agree that your response has to be defined in terms of a "standard" response, then where is the problem in using a population average to define that standard? The fact that you are probably also not of exact average height or weight does not make the whole concept of height or weight invalid.

It's the same thing with intelligence. It doesn't matter how good you think a definition is, what matters is that other people have to also use definition. Without a standardized definition, what you call "intelligent" may be a completely different set of abilities and behaviors than what I call "intelligent," and that limits the usefulness of the word in conveying information.

Which comes back to the argument I made. I suggested a single general definition of intelligence (which is backed up by a lot of psychology and neuroscience that I could cite). So this in turn can act as a constraint on the speculation being asked for here.

OK, let's talk about other intelligences. You might say I can imagine an entirely different set of mental functions because intelligence just seems like a loosely bundled collection of cognitive components. And I reply no, in fact there may be a single generic process that must characterise any imaginable form of life. So for that reason, alien intelligence would have to be like ours in that fashion.

So now you can go on to say, well there are these obvious flaws in your generic definition, and here is the literature to back up my comments.

You can't just state there are no generic definitions of intelligence as I have already put one on the table.

 

[Giantevilhead]

Your point seems strained because clearly there is a difference between the complaint that our definitions of intelligence seem rather vague, and hence insufficiently crisp, and the separate complaint you make that "a definition does not even exist".

You may also be confounding measures of individual difference in intelligence (ie: IQ tests) with the generic idea of intelligence (as an ethereal or emergent property of a complex system) that was in fact the OP.

So we are talking about "intelligence" in the indeed rather vague and generic sense of a knowing, sentient, being.

I didn't say that a definition does not even exist. I said that there is no set definition, as in there are no standardized definitions. Psychologists and neurologists in different fields have their own definitions but there isn't a consensus in the way that all physicists and chemists have set definitions for the terms they use in measuring and describing the universe.

Where's the difficulty in allowing a 10 nm wiggle room here? If you agree that your response has to be defined in terms of a "standard" response, then where is the problem in using a population average to define that standard? The fact that you are probably also not of exact average height or weight does not make the whole concept of height or weight invalid.

I never said that having "wiggle room" for definitions makes them useless. It simply makes them less useful for conveying information. For example, if you define green as between a different spectrum of light than the way I define it then when I tell you that the light is green, there is a chance that there could be a misunderstanding since you might consider the light I'm talking about to be blue. That kind of misunderstanding can be greatly reduced if a standardized system is used.

Which comes back to the argument I made. I suggested a single general definition of intelligence (which is backed up by a lot of psychology and neuroscience that I could cite). So this in turn can act as a constraint on the speculation being asked for here.

OK, let's talk about other intelligences. You might say I can imagine an entirely different set of mental functions because intelligence just seems like a loosely bundled collection of cognitive components. And I reply no, in fact there may be a single generic process that must characterise any imaginable form of life. So for that reason, alien intelligence would have to be like ours in that fashion.

So now you can go on to say, well there are these obvious flaws in your generic definition, and here is the literature to back up my comments.

You can't just state there are no generic definitions of intelligence as I have already put one on the table.

You define intelligence as "the capacity to forward model reality - to anticipate the consequences of courses of action." Is "intelligence" independent of that capacity or is "intelligence" a label for that capacity? Does someone have that capacity because they have "intelligence" or is "intelligence" just a word that you use to describe that capacity?

 

[apeiron]

I didn't say that a definition does not even exist. I said that there is no set definition, as in there are no standardized definitions. Psychologists and neurologists in different fields have their own definitions but there isn't a consensus in the way that all physicists and chemists have set definitions for the terms they use in measuring and describing the universe.

I don't get the impression here that you know enough about what they do say to judge. Prove me wrong by citing some references if you like...

You define intelligence as "the capacity to forward model reality - to anticipate the consequences of courses of action." Is "intelligence" independent of that capacity or is "intelligence" a label for that capacity? Does someone have that capacity because they have "intelligence" or is "intelligence" just a word that you use to describe that capacity?

Clearly, I defined intelligence as that capacity. It evolves to do that thing. To claim it arises to do other things that are clearly unrelated would be to dispute my definition.

 

[Giantevilhead]

I don't get the impression here that you know enough about what they do say to judge. Prove me wrong by citing some references if you like...

Just look at all the "theories" concerning intelligence, Thrustone's primary mental abilities, Gardner's multiple intelligences, Sternberg's triarchic theory, etc. They don't all conform to the APA's definition of intelligence.

Clearly, I defined intelligence as that capacity. It evolves to do that thing. To claim it arises to do other things that are clearly unrelated would be to dispute my definition.

If intelligence is defined as that capacity then intelligence is not a thing, it's simply a definition. What is important then is not "intelligence," but the capacity that intelligence describes. For example, if a child is good a chess, gets good grades, and has good memory, then that child is described as intelligent. However, intelligence is simply a label for someone with those abilities. Saying that the child is good a chess, gets good grades, and has good memory because he's intelligent doesn't really explain anything. What we need to ask is what specific events led to the development of those abilities.

 

[apeiron]

Just look at all the "theories" concerning intelligence, Thrustone's primary mental abilities, Gardner's multiple intelligences, Sternberg's triarchic theory, etc. They don't all conform to the APA's definition of intelligence.

I agree that if you focus on precisely those psychologists who try to define intelligence by ennumerating its sub-components, then you will be disappointed with the result.

Like a Swiss army knife, the idea seems superficially attractive but is a pretty useless implement in practice.

So that is why I go with those taking a generic approach to intelligence - one with a central purpose guiding its design.

So for example the current Bayesian brain approach - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_brain

If intelligence is defined as that capacity then intelligence is not a thing, it's simply a definition. What is important then is not "intelligence," but the capacity that intelligence describes. For example, if a child is good a chess, gets good grades, and has good memory, then that child is described as intelligent. However, intelligence is simply a label for someone with those abilities. Saying that the child is good a chess, gets good grades, and has good memory because he's intelligent doesn't really explain anything. What we need to ask is what specific events led to the development of those abilities.

Intelligence is not a thing but a process. It is a capacity to do something rather than the capacity to be something.

As to your child, a generic definition of intelligence as an evolutionary capacity for smart forward modelling would already tell you that chess, grades and even "good memory" (for what? facts, faces, skills?) are too culturally specific as tasks to really be what we are talking about.

That is why Gardner et al can make a career correcting for a too culture-centric initial definition of intelligence. Oh, but little Johnny's also good at music, empathy, woodwork, etc. Everyone's a genius in their own way.

So yes, it is very important to separate theories about biologically evolved generic capacities from particular culture-laden judgements about what impresses most.

Now if you have a specific argument against "future-modelling" being what brains are about, and also why consciousness feels like what it feels like, then let's hear it.

 

[Giantevilhead]

But the word is already so burdened by cultural context. It's already been appropriated to describe certain culturally relevant traits. Children who excel academically are often called intelligent while children who are excel at sport are instead called athletic or coordinated but not intelligent. A physicist is considered to be intelligent while an great actor is considered to be expressive or passionate but not intelligent.

Does it really serve us to try to redefine the word to be as culturally neutral as possible or would it be better to just use another word or invent a new word?

 

[apeiron]

But the word is already so burdened by cultural context. It's already been appropriated to describe certain culturally relevant traits. Children who excel academically are often called intelligent while children who are excel at sport are instead called athletic or coordinated but not intelligent. A physicist is considered to be intelligent while an great actor is considered to be expressive or passionate but not intelligent.

Does it really serve us to try to redefine the word to be as culturally neutral as possible or would it be better to just use another word or invent a new word?

Take it up with the OP. I didn't insist on the word here and would pretty much never use it myself. I would instead talk directly about anticipation, or modelling, or whatever.

On the other hand, I see no real difficulty in using it how the OP intended - as a generic question about sentience. I mean, have you even read the OP yet? Certainly you have said nothing that addresses it, just gone off on a tangent about a word you don't feel is properly definable.

 

[Kherubin]

I understand that the notion of 'intelligence' is tenuous at best, and individuals will have their own understandings of its meaning, however, I was hoping that my questions were sufficiently generalized as to avoid that problem.

If you are worried about definitions, or dismayed by the semantics of psychology, maybe its best to avoid the labels entirely. Please don't be restricted by my terminology. If in doubt, use your own.

In truth, a label is not required. In this context, I used 'Intelligence' to mean the whole gamut of the spectrum of human sentience. Do you think this is the only form of 'sentience' that can exist at this level of complexity? Do you think other 'emergent' properties are possible?

There's going to be a problem with 'sentience' isn't there?

 

[cosmographer]

Sentience is a problem too =) I think. Think of a reptile: the sensations it can avail of to move towards the world differently in the next round of encounter are conditioned by the kinds of sensations a reptile body-brain-mind coupling can make available to the reptile consciousness (or whatever else we want to term the highest operatory level of psychophysiological organisation in reptiles). One might be able to group intelligences by bodies, different worlds being made sensible, but then again you run into the problem that real bodies never are regular and that no body shares the mind, circumstance, biography and equipment of another.

With equipment we can make the jump to humans: where is intelligence located when a person thinks with a sheet of paper and a pencil? Where is intelligence located when one requires a habituation to mathematical thought to perform well in that domain? I'd argue that a focus on real world domains, equipment and cultural and biographical enskillment would blow the whole question wide open. And I mean that in the full biological sense. Giantvilehead does imo have apoint in focusing on events. Of course we all have biological bodies, but the building of our persons is quite plastic, totally open to the event, in a normal sense of biographical experience and in the sense of developmental systems evolution.

I think we have in these matters a habit to jump into styles of thought that will statistsize out the contingent specificities we encounter in our lives, in others, and not least in the self-conscious knowing of our own minds. try to think yourself back along any intellectual trajectory. can't you almost pinpoint the events where you acquired the possibilities of thought that you now wield so effortlessly?

My 0.02 Cents: "Intelligences" are much more contingent, personal and "eventful" than scientific approaches will have you think. This is not to say that I think it's wrong to try and average out some features of minds with instruments of scientific measurement, only that the complexity of the picture might be ridiculously underestimated in most approaches.

And a quick addition to apeirons focus on the future-modelling capacities of mind. I agree, that must surely be kind of lowest common denominator for human minds. A thought: are there other realities found in nature that can make pasts, presents and futures part of any present? What I mean to say: is what we call intelligence not perhaps better describable as the making available of pasts and extrapolated futures to make decidable present situations? But surely this can't be a deterministic exercise, we can even play out fantasy scenarios to make decidable a real situation..

 

[Giantevilhead]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erhmslcHvaw&feature=related

 

[apeiron]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erhmslcHvaw&feature=related

Thanks for reminding us how woefully impoverished operant psychology was as a theory of mental functioning. But did you have some point to make relevant to the OP?

 

[Giantevilhead]

Thanks for reminding us how woefully impoverished operant psychology was as a theory of mental functioning. But did you have some point to make relevant to the OP?

Really? I would say that the lack of behaviorist driven research is the reason why psychology has so many problems.

If simpler organisms like pigeons can be taught behaviors that we normally associate with more "intelligent" creatures like self awareness and problem solving behavior then what does that say about our definition of "intelligence?"

 

[apeiron]

Really? I would say that the lack of behaviorist driven research is the reason why psychology has so many problems.

If simpler organisms like pigeons can be taught behaviors that we normally associate with more "intelligent" creatures like self awareness and problem solving behavior then what does that say about our definition of "intelligence?"

The intellectual poverty of behaviourism is a different thread - unless you can say how a behaviourist would have answered the OP.

 

[Giantevilhead]

The intellectual poverty of behaviourism is a different thread - unless you can say how a behaviourist would have answered the OP.

The behaviorists would focus on the specific abilities and behaviors that we attribute to "intelligence" rather than worry about the label of intelligence.

Behaviorists recognize how people often conflate the label or description of a phenomenon with its cause. For example, when a child is able to identify itself in a mirror, the child is said to have self awareness. Self awareness is simply a label for the child's ability to identify itself in a mirror. However, many psychologists are treating self awareness like it's the cause of the behavior. They say that the child is able to identify itself in the mirror because it has self awareness, which is like saying that the child is able to identify itself in the mirror because it has the ability to identify itself in a mirror. Similarly, when a child is good at math, people say that it's because the child is intelligent or that good math skills is a sign of intelligence. However, that doesn't actually explain why the child is good at math.

 

[apeiron]

The behaviorists would focus on the specific abilities and behaviors that we attribute to "intelligence" rather than worry about the label of intelligence.

Thanks for proving my point about the impoverished project that was behaviourism.

The OP concerns the general constraints that would shape a universal notion of intelligence.

I supplied a specific suggestion (future modelling) based on the systems approach taken by psychologists, neuroscientists and neural net simulations.

You are stating that behaviourism would be unable to offer any sensible constraints here because as a discourse it simply does not have them to give. The answer must be "well intelligence could be anything I guess".

Skinnerianism wants to model reality solely in terms of efficient cause. It fails to address material, formal or final cause and so in the wider view is pretty much useless for anything.

Or perhaps you can name one really exciting paper on operant conditioning that has appeared in Nature or Science recently.