From: charles@dirac.physics.sunysb.edu (Charles Ofria)
Subject: Re: Defining Intelligence
Organization: Institute for Theoretical Physics, SUNY at Stony Brook
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 03:51:04 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.151338.28804@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>In article <2ZmcoB1w164w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu> justin.bbs@cybernet.cse.fau.edu writes:
>>        This thread has been beating at this subject for quite some time 
>>now, and I believe a reassessment of the progress that has been made here 
>>(or that has not been made, as the case may be) would be useful to 
>>provide redirection for the discussion.
>>        I'm not ambitious enough to undertake this, but I wonder if we 
>>can agree on some basics?  Criticism on these points is welcome.
>>
>>        I. Intelligence requires a memory storage/retrieval system.
>
>  Strongly disagree.
>
>  Certainly humans are capable of learning, and learning implies some
>kind of memory.  But I deny that it is a "storage/retrieval" system.
>Indeed it is my opinion that the often held belief that we have a
>storage/retrieval system is a major stumbling block in understanding
>human cognition.

I skipped many of the replies to this because I wanted to follow up to
some of the other issues in this article, but I have read them.  Anyay,
I have to say that I think that intelligence has a definate need for a
storage/retrieval system.  They way that you (Neil) are talking about
it seems more like a definate dump of informating into memory and
similarly a retrieval of it in chunks.  If it is looked at on a smaller
scale, I don't see how intelligence can be accomplished without a
memory.  Just the sheer train of thought to thought needs some link
between them.  If you were given a problem to solve, you have to keep
the various bits of data in memory.  You can almost think of this like
the regesters in a computer.  If you were going to add two numbers
togeather, they would first both have to enter your memory.  How can
you even hope to solve a problem if you can't store it?

Also, the retrieval methods in our brain don't necessarily function at
100%, so this would explain why it is sometimes difficult for us to
remember stuff.  Compund this with memory corruption, and it pretty
easy to understand why we lose so much that we "store".

>>        II. Intelligence is about problem-solving.
>
>  Strongly disagree.
>
>  Intelligence is all about survival.  For survival, response to stimulus
>is the important feature.  Problem solving certainly helps by greatly
>broadening the variety of possible responses.  But I would prefer to
>say that problem solving ability is a side effect of intelligence, rather
>than a central component.

This can be looked at in a number of ways.  I personally prefer the idea
that intelligence is about problem solving where survival is just another
one of those problems to be solved.

>>        III. Intelligence requires drives.
>
>  Of course, there is the genetically implanged drive for survival.
>But if you intended some conscious drive, I must strongly disagree.
>That has it backwards.  Intelligence is needed to produce the type of
>conscious awareness necessary as a prerequisite for having such drives.

I agree that intelligence is helped by drives, but they are not required.
In generally you need a reason to think if you are going to, and for an
artificial intelligence you want it to have some motivation to not just
sit there and do nothing, but for some reason this dosn't seem REQUIRED
to have the intelligence.

>>        IV. Intelligence requires creativity.
>
>  Again, I must disagree.  Once again, creativity is an effect of
>intelligence, but I very much doubt that it is a prerequisite.  Indeed,
>it is much more likely that intelligence is a prerequisite for creativity.

This is a tricky question.  I think that it all depends on how you are
defining intelligence (which is exactly what we are trying to do.)  It
dosn't seem to me like creativity is required for intelligence.  An
intelligence might simply be able to learn, a figure things out, but
never come up with anything new of there own.  If they were to have this
creativity, I'm sure that it would improve their intelligence greatly.

I can easily see how intelligence is a prereq for creativity though.  If
you don't understand something, how can you possibly come up with somthing
new about it?

>>        V. Intelligence is a function of speed.  It's likely we all agree 
>>on this point.
>
>  Can't agree here either.  Speed certainly has utility.  But I don't
>believe it is central.  Certainly speed is an important part of
>intelligence for an animal involved in intense predator/prey relations.
>But if a creature adopts an ecological niche where there are no predators,
>it might be able to adopt a quite sedate life style and still be very
>intelligent.

I have to agree with Neil here.  I have a friend with a problem that she
thinks very slowly, so normal things take her slightly longer, but when
she is trying to figure a problem or such out, she comes up with the most
amazing results.  Despite the speed at which she thinks, she is one of the
most briliant people I know.  I see how speed helps, but I don't see why
its needed.

>>        VI. Certain types of intelligence require communication.
>
>  Finally, something I can agree with - sort of.

Gee, I don't agree with either of you here.  I don't see why it would be
necessary to have any form of comunication to have intelligence.  Perhaps
you wouldn't be able to express your thoughts and ideas to others, but
that dosn't mean that they don't exist.

>>                                                                  This is 
>>where the Turing Test comes in,
>
>  Just a moment there.  The communication you are thinking of in the
>Turing test is needed to demonstrate the intelligence to others.  It is
>not itself an integral part of the intelligence.

If you were not thinking of demonstrating intelligence to others, what
were you thinking that communication meant?

>  That being said, the term "communication" is so general, and your
>equivocation "certain types of" is so broad, that I have to agree with
>statement VI.

It seems to me that learning was completely left off this list for some
reason.  I have always felt this to be one of the key elements of an
intellignece.  I suppose that you could lump this with memory, but that
dosn't seem right.

Overall, I think that we should divide these things into two catagories:
What is intelligence, and what will improve an intelligence.  Memory,
learning, and problem solving seem to me as requirements for an
intellignece, while creativity, drive  and speed are only pluses.  I'm not 
quite sure how communtication would fit in for the actual inteligence 
unless you thought of it as a method to aquire more data from others.  In 
this way I guess you could consider it a plus.