Ok, let's of stuff to respond to here:
Originally posted by hypnagogue
BiologyForums,
I don't know if what you're saying is entirely consistent, so I would appreciate it if you clarified your stance a little. You say that the 'ability to' do something does not constitute intelligence-- but you also seem to think that mathematical aptitude is a genuine form of intelligence. So how precisely can the ability to do quick calculations in your head be a form of intelligence, while the ability to pick up a song after a couple of lessons not be?
I am unsure why I stated something seeming to say mathematical aptitude is a genuine form of intelligence. Show me, perhaps it doesn't communicate what I meant or I made a mistake.
Intelligence is a process of a biological system. For instance the Respiratory System, is fo course a biological system. One process this system performs is called breathing: inhaling oxygen and exhaling CO2.
The endorcrine system performs processes of releasing hormones into the body or onto the outter skin.
The nervous system, or more specifically the brain system, performs a process called intelligence.
One might define some important parameters of breathing as the capacity of the lungs, the possible exhaling and inhaling pressure, and how well oxygen is pumped in - and CO2 "sucked" out, of the internal to lung chamber barrier.
The process of intelligence has two important parameters. Notice they are identical to those of the computer processor.
1. Speed
2. Bandwidth (in a computer)
Speed can be inhibited, such of that in a mentally retarded person, or someone consuming inhibitory medications.
Bandwidth would be determined by the number of neurons in a given area, or in the brain in general if comparins cross-species.
Originally posted by hypnagogue
You also say that intelligence is best seen as a process. Exactly what kind of process do you mean? It must be something more specific than 'neural information processing,' because then any activity in the brain can be seen as a form of intelligence. So what exactly is it about the process of intelligence, as you define it, that delineates it from other neural processes in the brain?
Your wording here is slightly out of scew. You say that "activity in the brain is a form of intelligence". But a correct phrase would be more like "acitivity in the brain uses the process of intelligence."
Your question of what delineates it from other processes in the brain... Mainly that it's normal called intelligence in areas of the brain that, throughout evolution, have grown to be what we refer to as "higher processing" areas. For instance neural processes in the medula, or the cerebellum, are not referred to as intelligence.
This is because, general speaking, the changes in lineage of the brain stem sections do not greatly vary in size in a brain/body weight comparison - however the areas of the brain which touch the outter skull - all the lobes, are greatly enhanced in some creatures.
So what is referred to as intelligence are the neural processes in areas which are considered variable in humans and in some other species.
Originally posted by hypnagogue
You also seem to imply the criterion that that which can be taught does not constitute a form of intelligence. But if mathematical aptitude constitutes a form of intelligence, then clearly this intelligence depends on some kind of formal teaching. For instance, if I had never taken math beyond the grade school level, I would have much greater difficulty performing calculations in my head. Now there is a distinction to be made; is this the case because of the math I was taught, or was the continual experience of doing calculations honing some innate mathematical ability of mine? I think you would say the latter, and I would (mostly) agree. But can't we then also look at the process of formally learning music as, on some level, honing some innate musical ability? Would it then be incorrect to denote this innate musical ability as musical intelligence?
I think this is based on an earlier comment, I may have mistated something. But math aptitude is certainly a function of intelligence no doubt. But it's also a function of teaching skills, of attention span and ability, of interest etc. See below for some good info on this...
Originally posted by hypnagogue
As an aside, I think you overstate your case when you talk about the firm grasp the scientific community has on the concept of intelligence. If we understood intelligence that well, the field of artificial intelligence might have lived up to some of its bold predictions by now. Even some of the more successful applications, such as Deep Blue, rely more on a priori knowledge and brute force than actual intelligence. Deep Blue has beaten the best chess player in the world because it was programmed to give each chess piece a particular value as determined by human chess masters and because the breadth and depth of its analysis of future moves was much, much greater than is humanly possible. The ratio of the quality of strategy to computational resources is still much higher in the human than in the computer; I would argue that this efficiency of information processing is part of what constitutes true intelligence. Classical AI has run into countless theoretical objections, and more importantly, its progress as a field has continually run into one brick wall after another. Simulated neural networks are a better approach, but even the results here have been relatively modest thus far.
Earlier I believe I stated that indeed even in the scientific community Intelligence is not well understood, as far as what is known, and how it is defined, in the specific fields. In that small niche of fields it is understood.
Lemme give a comparison here. An evolutionary biologists understands evolution well, no doubt. When teaching to a class the biology may make a comment like the following:
"There is a mechanism in predators known as the risk of ruin. It's an observation that a creature such as a lion, will attack a small rabbit with the same sneak and attack skills, the same speed, and the same srength as it does an Elk or a Zebra. It does this because it knows that it needs to be as sure as possible that each hunting attempt is a success, for itself and for it's children."
Now this evolutionary biology knows that the lion does not "know" this. The lion isn't conscious about this at all. It's a personification to simplify to students.
In reality what occurs is this:
"The lions which attack all of their prey will full force are more likely to have greater number of successes, whcih provide the young with more food to grow stronger and thus they are selected FOR."
But the teacher often chooses to use the personification to simplify the conversation.
This occurs as well when scientists attempt to communicate information regarding intelligence - for the sake of making it easier on others.
One might say - the ability to process math equations is a form of intelligence.
But in reality what occurs is someone who has a greater "bandwidth" and "speed" of processes would likely be able to "deal with" any input information better than the average person.
But again, a greater number of neural connection can be specific to one area of the brain, and be normal in another.
Regarding the latter comments. You made the comment that intelligence is not well understood. This is kind of a yes and a no. What scientists have chosen to define as intelligence is well chosen - and the process itself, on the level of a neuron is very well understood.
But what's the challenge is going from the single neuron to understanding entire embedded tissue layers of neurons, and bring this outward towards the entire processing human. It's an enormous step from small to big - and we are most certainly in an infancy, perhaps not even born yet!
The AI shows this - some of the best ways to understand are to copy. AI has run into issues, and forced to be "rethought" as they say. AI started more as an attempt to fake intelligence rather than to copy it. Whereas neural networks attempt to copy it.
It's definitely something that, if only showing us one thing, has shown us we have a hell of a long way to go.
I hope that makes a bit of sense - it's early/late!
