From: oldham@ms.uky.edu (Joseph Oldham)
Subject: Re: Defining intelligence
    <1992Sep7.14929.16475@ms.uky.edu> <exukjb.137.716066041@exu.ericsson.se>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 04:08:57 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

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

>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)
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Gee. (or, "Don't tell God he doesn't have problems..." :-) ).
Ok, a being in an unproblematic environment. (That'll be the day.)
Can such a being have "ends"?  Say it can.  Then it has a problem of how to
achieve those ends.  Oh, is it omnipotent too!  (That *always* creates
problems :-).  Well, then it has a trivial solution to all of its problems.
If I had a trivial solution to all my problems I'd feel pretty darned
intelligent. (i.e. the "zero-adaptation" -- choosing just the right means,
is intelligent behavior.)

I surely intended my "problem solving" formulation to be quite close to your
"means adapting" formulation.  As you point out, at least as I phrased it
some odd results might be found.  But it seems useful.  And I think your
earlier "anitipcated objections" need an answer far more than any objection
grounded in a totally unproblematic environment -- which I can't really
conceive.  If you warp the environment too badly you may well find an
environment in which "intelligence" really isn't worth talking about. Then
you'll be out of job.

J.O.

-- 
Joseph D. Oldham
oldham@ms.uky.edu
oldham@UKMA.BITNET
home: (606) 233 7614
Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:6100 rec.arts.sf.misc:2922 alt.cyberpunk:4278