Define intelligence

[Mr Skeptic]

In a few discussions here we have had the problem that intelligence is badly defined. Here's my definition:

 

Intelligence is the ability to think of solutions to problems. By think of, I mean compute, model, etc rather than physically solve. An ability to solve only specific types of problems would be a specific subtype of intelligence.

 

How do you define intelligence?

[foodchain]

In a few discussions here we have had the problem that intelligence is badly defined. Here's my definition:

 

Intelligence is the ability to think of solutions to problems. By think of, I mean compute, model, etc rather than physically solve. An ability to solve only specific types of problems would be a specific subtype of intelligence.

 

How do you define intelligence?

 

Do you view intelligence and consciousness having to be existing together or part of one another?

[Mr Skeptic]

Do you view intelligence and consciousness having to be existing together or part of one another?

 

No. They are different things, and not necessarily inseparable. A dreaming person would be intelligent but unconscious, while a fish might be conscious but of very limited intelligence.

[dichotomy]

 

Intelligence is the ability to think of solutions to problems. By think of, I mean compute, model, etc rather than physically solve. An ability to solve only specific types of problems would be a specific subtype of intelligence.

 

How do you define intelligence?

 

Then how do we account for all the problems that have been solved but then spawned new problems? Is the ‘solved’ problem still considered intelligent? Eg. Automobiles solved mobility problems but created more - air pollution, serious collisions, laziness and health problems, excessive fossil fuel consumption, etc.

So then intelligence might be defined as the ability to solve problems that create more problems to solve?

 

I’d define intelligence as the ability to live with the barest of necessities. To be able to solve problems whilst minimising the creation of more problems. And still remain at the top of the food chain.

[Eureko]

Then how do we account for all the problems that have been solved but then spawned new problems? Is the ‘solved’ problem still considered intelligent? Eg. Automobiles solved mobility problems but created more - air pollution, serious collisions, laziness and health problems, excessive fossil fuel consumption, etc.

So then intelligence might be defined as the ability to solve problems that create more problems to solve?

 

I´d define intelligende as Mr Skeptic did at first time. The hability to solve problems, it is just this. If you solve a problem but create a new one it means that you´re very intelligent in solving the kind of problems you already solved (as he explained, a subtipe). And, solving every kind of problem and not creating new ones it is not just intelligence, in my opinion that´d be something like wisdom, a very balanced intelligence.

[Fred56]

Intelligence is both a general kind of concept and a specific measure of an individual's (not just humans) ability to resolve any situation -to "deal with" the world. In humans, and presumably in other kinds of lifeforms, there is a distribution, a bell curve, or probability that any individual intelligence falls within.

 

The larger mass of 'average' intelligence, than of lower or upper 'quartiles' could explain why leaders (people who are presumed to be better at making decisions) appear in the human spectrum.

 

But we appear to also be willing to cede all authority, and to abrogate our own decision-making. This might be a mistake, but then being intelligent doesn't mean you don't make mistakes. I guess if you have intelligence, you're aware of this 'flaw' with it. Or you could say something like: a 'wise' man understands that he can be 'stupid', or do 'stupid' or 'irrational' things. Or that their wisdom doesn't guarantee they will do only wise things.

[iNow]

The number of hits I get when I google "Define: Intelligence" illustrates how hard it is to pin this concept down to something simple and encompassing.

 

Here are a few:

 

the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 

Intelligence is a property of mind that encompasses many related mental abilities, such as the capacities to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend ideas and language, and learn. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence

 

The ability to learn, reason, and problem solve. Debate revolves around the nature of intelligence as to whether it is an innate quality or something that is developed as a result ofinteracting with the environment. Many researchers believe that it is a combination of the two.

tagt.affiniscape.com/displaycommon.cfm

 

Intelligence is the system's level of performance in reaching its objectives.

http://www.intelligent-systems.com.ar/intsyst/glossary.htm

An operating network that has a way of controlling the flow of information and manipulating it -- in other words, problem-solving.

http://www.mgrush.com/content/view/70/33/

 

The accumulation of experiences together with the knowing as to how these experiences are connected; wisdom.

http://www.ishvara.org/Pages/glossary.html

 

is effectively perceiving, interpreting and responding to the environment. It is also taken to mean the ability of an organization to survive and meet desired goals and objectives.

http://www.mountainquestinstitute.com/definitions.htm

 

many competing definitions exist for one of the most controversial concepts in psychology. The most influential in the assessment of intelligence in workplace settings is ‘the innate ability to perceive relationships and identify co-relationships’. ...

http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199253975/01student/glossary/glossary.htm

 

Intelligence is a generic term for various cognitive abilities. It is classified into different components, depending on the intelligence theory (eg in his work "The Berlin Model of Intelligence", AO Jäger lists: cognitive speed, memory, creativity, and reasoning to process verbal, numerical ...

http://www.personalpsychologie.com/glossary.html

 

Intelligence refers to the various verbal and nonverbal skills and aptitudes one uses to cope with, interact with, and manipulate the outside world.

http://www.psychaudit.com/glossary.htm

 

 

To be perfectly honest, even with all of the above definitions of "intelligence," I'm still pretty fuzzy about the idea and what it truly means.

 

If a 4 year old asked you, "What is intelligence?" how would you describe it in terms even they would understand?

 

 

 

Here are links on "Intelligence Theory," which essentially inspired my inquiry in the thread which inspired this one:

 

http://cookps.act.edu.au/mi.htm

http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/gifted.shtml

http://www.personalityresearch.org/intelligence.html

 

 

From the first:

 

Gardner's Seven Intelligences are described in more detail in the following links :

 

Linguistic Intelligence

Logical/Mathematical Intelligence

Musical Intelligence

Spatial Intelligence

Bodily Intelligence

Interpersonal Intelligence

Intrapersonal Intelligence

[dichotomy]

 

Gardner's Seven Intelligences are described in more detail in the following links :

 

Linguistic Intelligence

Logical/Mathematical Intelligence

Musical Intelligence

Spatial Intelligence

Bodily Intelligence

Interpersonal Intelligence

Intrapersonal Intelligence

 

 

Are they not all connected by the ability to problem solve/solution create?

 

If so it takes us back to - problem solving ability. The more that varied problems can be solved (linguistic, mathematical, spatial, bodily etc.), the more intelligence is evident. Thus our species, as a whole, is the most intelligent species, due to the span of different types of intelligence possessed within our species.

[Mr Skeptic]

Wow! Thanks, iNow.

 

Are they not all connected by the ability to problem solve/solution create?

 

If so it takes us back to - problem solving ability. The more that varied problems can be solved (linguistic, mathematical, spatial, bodily etc.), the more intelligence is evident. Thus our species, as a whole, is the most intelligent species, due to the span of different types of intelligence possessed within our species.

 

That does seem central to all the definitions. Lots of the definitions iNow found included the capability to learn as part of the definition.

 

So, should we conclude that intelligence requires learning? We might ask, "Can someone who cannot learn be intelligent?" Can someone with severe amnesia be intelligent?

 

---

It may also be a good idea to define some related terms such as learning, creativity, etc

[Realitycheck]

Out of the hospital from a coma, the psychiatrists measure your itelligence by 1) Verbal - what you know, and 2) Performance - your ability to do something.

[doG]

I particularly like Jeff Hawkins idea in defining intelligence...

[dichotomy]

Wow! Thanks, iNow.

 

 

 

That does seem central to all the definitions. Lots of the definitions iNow found included the capability to learn as part of the definition.

 

So, should we conclude that intelligence requires learning? We might ask, "Can someone who cannot learn be intelligent?" Can someone with severe amnesia be intelligent?

 

A baby instinctively cries for milk, and eventually consciously learns that crying = milk. This would have to be one of the very first problems solved in any mammal’s life. If the baby does not learn this, then the baby risks death. So, cause and effect learning does solve problems, which to me constitutes intelligence.

Maybe the more causes and effects identified, the more intelligent an individual and/or species are seen to be?

[Sancho Panza]

Intelligence is the ability to apply meaning to stimuli.

Accuracy or consensus regarding the meaning of a particular set of stimuli quantifies the level of intelligence.

Level of intelligence is a sliding scale which allows the application of new meanings from the addition, combination, or recombination of stimuli as well as the recognition of minds that process the meaning of stimuli in a more efficient manner.

 

Sancho Panza

[CDarwin]

Wow! Thanks, iNow.

 

 

 

That does seem central to all the definitions. Lots of the definitions iNow found included the capability to learn as part of the definition.

 

So, should we conclude that intelligence requires learning? We might ask, "Can someone who cannot learn be intelligent?" Can someone with severe amnesia be intelligent?

 

---

It may also be a good idea to define some related terms such as learning, creativity, etc

 

I would call intelligence "using learned behaviored to survive." That would would distinguish "intelligent" action from those that are done out of instinct. Learned behaviors can also be communicated and improved upon communally, which is a hallmark of human behavior and what really gives us our competitive edge as a species.

 

Put Albert Einstein alone in a desert, he would die. It doesn't matter how 'smart' you are intrinsically unless you can communicate and learn from your fellow man. Put a culture in that same desert, and it will thrive.

 

Thus, humans are the most "intelligent" because we rely on learned behavior more than any other animal.

[foodchain]

I would call intelligence "using learned behaviored to survive." That would would distinguish "intelligent" action from those that are done out of instinct. Learned behaviors can also be communicated and improved upon communally, which is a hallmark of human behavior and what really gives us our competitive edge as a species.

 

Put Albert Einstein alone in a desert, he would die. It doesn't matter how smart you are unless you can communicate and learn from your fellow man.

 

Thus, humans are the most "intelligent" because we rely on learned behavior more than anything else.

 

That is an interesting way of putting it. What about the reality that we also evolved from a social animal? How much of an learning attribute would you attribute to that in regards to human issues such as tools or language?

 

I ask this because your question made me think of what possible reality can one person sustain themselves and really for how long. It would seem to me that death without reproduction would apply here but for just the time the individual could survive. I think the relative min or max of animals that could survive solo though being social in origin would possibly make a pattern:D

 

I also heard that long space travel times would induced insanity on the people doing such, is that true?

[iNow]

Foodchain, I really have no idea what you just said, nor of your point. However, we are social beings, our society has helped us survive, and long term isolation from social interaction DOES cause mental neuroses and illness.

 

You do, however, raise an amazing point about the differences and parallels between individual intelligence and group intelligence. Intelligence of the organism versus (and coupled with) intelligence of the society.

 

Put that in your pipe and smoke it for a while.

[foodchain]

Foodchain, I really have no idea what you just said, nor of your point. However, we are social beings, our society has helped us survive, and long term isolation from social interaction DOES cause mental neuroses and illness.

 

You do, however, raise an amazing point about the differences and parallels between individual intelligence and group intelligence. Intelligence of the organism versus (and coupled with) intelligence of the society.

 

Put that in your pipe and smoke it for a while.

 

Its simple I think, such as say apples to oranges. On one end up have species like a tiger, or a lion or a bear. On the other end you have more social creatures, like primates for example. So if one species has its evolution in the context of being a solitary creature save maybe for mating vs. one that has evolved or phylogeny it has holds an affinity for being social, what is the relative impact maybe on individual survival. obviously solitary animals seem to do well in the wild. So if that’s the case, then obviously we have a nature then. As CDarwin was expressing such that a human cannot survive outside the scope of his species influence. Is that a product of such an evolution, like language. Many social creatures display this trait even down to insects be it almost like digital music there.

[Mr Skeptic]

I would call intelligence "using learned behaviored to survive." That would would distinguish "intelligent" action from those that are done out of instinct. Learned behaviors can also be communicated and improved upon communally, which is a hallmark of human behavior and what really gives us our competitive edge as a species.

 

Would that make the Goa'uld from Stargate (they have genetic memories from both their parents, so most of their behavior wasn't learned by them) not be intelligent? Yet their knowledge was learned by their parents. I guess what I am getting at is that instinctive behavior would have been "learned" ever so slowly by a creature's ancestors. The individual creature may have near zero learning capabilities, but it may have significant knowledge nonetheless. This could be considered a creature with significant "crystallized intelligence" but near zero "fluid intelligence".

 

Interesting idea. If someone was born with all the knowledge of several PHD's but learned little new, would he be considered intelligent?

[richard]

Absorb and retain information. Use information to formulate new information and guide action. Thats my guess.

[Paralith]

Would that make the Goa'uld from Stargate (they have genetic memories from both their parents, so most of their behavior wasn't learned by them) not be intelligent? Yet their knowledge was learned by their parents. I guess what I am getting at is that instinctive behavior would have been "learned" ever so slowly by a creature's ancestors. (emphasis mine - paralith) The individual creature may have near zero learning capabilities, but it may have significant knowledge nonetheless. This could be considered a creature with significant "crystallized intelligence" but near zero "fluid intelligence".

 

Interesting idea. If someone was born with all the knowledge of several PHD's but learned little new, would he be considered intelligent?

 

The idea of Goa'uld is an interesting one, but no organism on this planet inherits learned behaviors. I bolded that one sentence of yours because it's technically incorrect. Behaviors that are learned in one organism's lifetime are not heritable - they cannot be passed on to the offspring genetically. Instinctive behaviors are completely genetic - and are usually for behaviors where the cost of getting it wrong is very high. For example, a predatory bird may instinctively avoid a certain poisonous snake, even if it has never seen it before in its life. This is because any of its ancestors that did try to eat that snake almost invariably died. There was no chance to learn anything - make the mistake once and you're toast.

 

But instincts are inflexible. That one bird will not change that behavior throughout its lifetime no matter how its environment or experiences change. So behaviors that are learned are ones where where you won't suffer significant reproductive loss during the learning curve, and where flexibility is required. This way, even if the environments change between or within generations, each cohort will still be able to learn what is best suited for the particular situation, and to change their behavior during their lifetime if it becomes necessary.

 

This is clearly a very adaptive trait. So the ability to learn is inherited, but not the behaviors themselves that are learned.

 

So I guess what I'm saying is, your question is interesting, but unrelated to life on Earth. None of it operates that way here. I'm not even sure the complex and abstract concepts/ideas that PhDs have stored in their brain could even be coded for genetically.

[Fred56]

A baby instinctively cries for milk, and eventually consciously learns[/b'] that crying = milk.

Crying, or mewling as in cats and dogs, and most mammals, is innate behaviour. As in, it's fully-functional at birth.

This would have to be one of the very first problems solved in any mammal’s life. If the baby does not learn this, then the baby risks death. So, cause and effect learning does solve problems, which to me constitutes intelligence.

A newborn marsupial, like the kangaroo, has to travel some distance to get to its mother's teat; this goal-driven innate function that all newborn kangaroos have, when they're still less than 1/2 in. long, is, like, the first step on the next part of its life, and all mammals appear to be born like this, with a behaviour or innate learning, aimed squarely at survival.

[dichotomy]

Crying, or mewling as in cats and dogs, and most mammals, is innate behaviour. As in, it's fully-functional at birth.

 

 

That’s right. Unconsciously fully functional, pre-installed, instinctive, automatic (what ever your choice of instinctive action words might be) behaviour is, in a human at least, eventually seen consciously by the human and the human then learns how to use this once instinctive action as an effective intelligent choice of conscious action. Some instincts, in humans, like crying for milk, or help, eventually become intelligent and conscious actions.

 

It's probabable, that the ability to learn stems originally from instinctive action that is, at some point, consciously realised as critical/useful to survival.

[Mr Skeptic]

Would intelligence have to be chaotic, and have powerful internal feedback loops?

[Fred56]

Would intelligence have to be chaotic, and have powerful internal feedback loops?

Chaos is what happens when some force is allowed to act without restraint, at least that's how Aristotle & co saw it.

[T man831]

is the ability to solve a problem, or compute. NOT memorize.