From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining intelligence
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:23:48 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

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

>%r bill@nsma.arizona.edu (Bill Skaggs)
>>marky@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>>
>>   >   > That is, [something is more intelligent than me if] it does
>>   >   > things the way I would if I'd had more time to think about
>>   >   > them, or that I would do given its example. 
>>
>>How about the following:  Adolph Hitler was pretty intelligent, I
>>think, maybe more intelligent than me, but I hope that I would never
>>do things the way he did, regardless of how much time I had to think
>>about them.  (If Hitler seems like a dubious example, substitute
>>Satan.)
>>
>This is a good point.  My defence is that it says "does things the 
>way I would", which -- to me at least -- indicates that we are only
>talking about the things that we both do.  The things that you or I
>would not do are thus not relevent to how intelligent we judge the
>other to be (unless of course we're talking about things we wouldn't
>do because they're abysmally stupid -- things like the Three Stooges
>would do).

>I want to say again that I am not offering the above as a definition
>of intelligence, but only as a rule of thumb that people use to tell
>whether someone else is intelligent.  Like any rule of thumb, there
>are caveats all over the place.  The rule only applies to things
>that people believe are related to intelligence (putting on socks and
>shoes is not related -- Archie Bunker notwithstanding).  The rule is
>inapplicable if one or the other of you is incapable of doing something
>the way the other did.  Et cetera, et cetera.

>>Even better, consider Isaac Newton, who was, no question, far more
>>intelligent than me, yet devoted a major part of his life to what I
>>think of as theological nonsense.
>>
>Well that was pretty stupid of him, wasn't it.... :-)

>>       -- Bill

>...mark young

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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:5917 rec.arts.sf.misc:2764 alt.cyberpunk:4056