From: oldham@ms.uky.edu (Joseph Oldham)
Subject: Re: Defining intelligence
    <1992Aug11.152606.25085@zip.eecs.umich.edu> 
    <BILL.92Aug11130136@ca3.nsma.arizona.edu> 
    <1992Aug13.044325.16707@zip.eecs.umich.edu> 
    <exukjb.105.715022628@exu.ericsson.se>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 05:49:29 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

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