From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining intelligence
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:14:01 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep7.14929.16475@ms.uky.edu> oldham@ms.uky.edu (Joseph Oldham) writes:
>From: oldham@ms.uky.edu (Joseph Oldham)
>Subject: Re: Defining intelligence
>Date: 7 Sep 92 05:49:29 GMT

>exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:

>>In article <1992Aug13.044325.16707@zip.eecs.umich.edu> marky@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>>>From: marky@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
>>>Subject: Re: Defining intelligence
>>>Date: 13 Aug 92 04:43:25 GMT

>... lots and lots deleted ...


>>>OK, I've seen enough!  A new characterization of "intelligence": the 
>>>capacity to adapt means to ends.  Differential abilities in respect of 
>>>adapting means to ends by different orders of living being indicates 
>>>why intelligence is both a type-word and a straightforwardly adjectival 
>>>one. The more intelligent something is, the better able it is to find the 
>>>best means to attain its ends. 

>>>Theoretical Advantages:

>>>      1. Accounts for our use of the word to cover any kind of living 
>>>           entity capable of acting purposefully (this does not mean nor 
>>>           entail that entities to which we may properly ascribe 
>>>         intelligence select their own goals, only that they have them 
>>>         and go about attaining them, and that their behavior must be 
>>>         given a purposeful explanation.)             	

>>>      2. Accounts for our gut feeling that intelligence is closely 
>>>         tied to consciousness, because only conscious beings            
>>>         know values (rooted in needs & desires) and thus can have 
>>>         purposes. And, since consciousness is a matter of    
>>>         degree, so is intelligence.  	

>>>Anticipated Objection1: Doesn't intelligence enter in to the choice of 
>>>                      ends as well as means? 

>>>Anticipated Objection2: Must the ends be pre-visioned (requiring 
>>>                      consciousness)?

>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
>>>Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        Abstract Arts BBS 386-7907
>>>P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
>>>Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Why not just say intelligence is the ability to solve problems.  Then if you
>think of "What problem to solve" as a problem you make goal selection
>a problem to solve.  The solution to the the "problem problem" may come from
>physical needs --  to take on the problem of satisfying hunger is not
>necessarily a conscious choice, but an "intelligent" selection even if
>automatic.  When we choose a more abstract problem to solve -- like "What
>is intelligence" -- not always an intelligent choice of problem :-), we
>have a conscious solution to the "problem problem."  So maybe our "intellignce
>metric" has to include whether the problem we're solving is situtaion
>appropriate, whether we're working on it as a matter of ncessity or
>choice, how tough it is, and what our solution is.  Note we get high
>marks for choosing to take on a tough problem like 'What is Inteligence"
>even if we haven't solved it, and so long as we're not starving in the
>process :-).

>Seems to be pretty much what you were saying but perhaps fares better wrt your
>anticipated objections.

>J.O.

>-- 
>Joseph D. Oldham
>oldham@ms.uky.edu
>oldham@UKMA.BITNET
>home: 233 7614

Well, it would fare well in terms of the listed anticipated objections, 
except that it may have the rather queer result that we could not 
ascribe intelligence to a being in a completely unproblematic environment -- 
unproblematic either because of structural features of the environment 
itself or because of structural features of the being in question, e.g. this 
being had no needs to satisfy, no wants, no central nervous system so no 
pain-pleasure modality, etc.  If a being in these circumstances would have 
no "problems", then such a being could not, on your analysis of 
"intelligence", *be* intelligent at all!  And, come to think of it, if 
you're right about this, intelligence could *not* properly be ascribed to 
what people have meant by the word "God", since on the at least 
normative western theistic view obviously this being doesn't have any
"problems" to solve, nor, being omnipotent, would he have to adapt means 
to ends to accomplish any purposes he might have.

  Uhmm. Perhaps if given enough time I could think of a few more odd 
consequences along these lines, although I am now beginning to feel like I 
am mischieviously misinterpreting your views.  This is not my intent.  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        ANTHEM BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------