Can't we Define "Intelligence" in a simplistic manner

[Xittenn]

why does your response remind me of this?

 

 

The links provided, however pragmatically related to the topic at hand, add very little insight into the problem. The links presented simply defer the discussion to materials that at best summarize a good amount of knowledge and details that, although related, have very little to do with summarizing intelligence; especially from a biological standpoint. If this was an attempt at distinguishing mechanical logic from conceptual intelligence, I was also unable to decipher your meanings.

 

Why is there a link to Family Guy in this thread? And also, why didn't you answer the question?

 

-- or better --

 

I would love to hear what you were thinking.

 

Thanks Gramps,

 

Beka:D <3

Edited November 26, 2011 by Xittenn

[superball]

Intelligence Test:

 

 

Perhaps we may find the definition of Intelligence? by searching for the tests that have been used to determine? One stroke of the key, genius test brings the meaning in plain view.

 

 

 

((((((You have to work out what the letters mean)))))<<<<<<<<<< See No 0 as an example.

It doesn't matter if you write the answers in uppercase or lowercase, but the answers

must be exactly as expected (no additional intervals or dashes and the spelling must be correct).

There is no time limit for this test.

 

Answers will (((automatically verified))) as you type 'em.

 

 

You see the top results show meaning. My link, My puzzle survey say >>>>> analyzing system , function of learning. So no you cant engineer a bunch of dead heads in order to serve your own purpose.

 

 

cheers..

Edited November 26, 2011 by mooeypoo

[mooeypoo]

!

Moderator Note

superball, you were warned not to advertise other unrelated (CLOSED!) threads in discussions. There will come a time where we will stop reminding you of the rules you agreed to when you joined. Links removed. Next time the post will be deleted.

[superball]

!

Moderator Note

superball, you were warned not to advertise other unrelated (CLOSED!) threads in discussions. There will come a time where we will stop reminding you of the rules you agreed to when you joined. Links removed. Next time the post will be deleted.

 

 

mooeypoo

Oh look, Pwnies! == EDITED ==

 

You know, the original poster supplied links to BAUT forum, where the video/idea was already discussed, and the posters there make incredibly good points.

 

(Please remember, to avoid plagiarism and be fair, if you link to anything someone else said, be it in a forum or a website, supply the full link-back and credit)

 

going to show you one more time poo how you are wrong for deleting the 2 links, in your own word.

title of thread can we define simple intelligence.

 

(Please remember, to avoid plagiarism

Ok great I linked were the information was obtained from a search relating to intelligence. Sighted from internet. I used the key board, and said this is the link.

 

ok fine, here is how i did it: Perhaps we may find the definition of Intelligence if we search for intelligence tests.. The test in my link was from the net. I said that clearly.

 

by searching for the tests that have been used to determine

 

((((((One stroke of the key,))))) search >>>>>>genius test >>>>>>> top results brings the {meaning in plain view}.<<<<<<<<<<<< are you blind?

 

 

f you link to anything someone else said

be it in a forum or a website,

supply the full link-back and credit

LINK was supplied, forum link was also supplied.

 

Now for the simple answer of the op question. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>internet link was supplyed. and also a forum link.

 

In each case related to the question ( define simply) not one intelligent person could answer. If you looked at my puzzle the answer was in plain view.... I say, survey says >>>>> IT IS A analyzing system , IT IS A function of learning.

 

your at fault, and you should apologize. I followed the rules in your own word!!!!!

 

Net search>> I used with >>>the link I posted>>>> and linked in relation to>>>> intelligence>>>>> the failure>>>> is on your part.>>>>>>>>. to read, or even understand,>>> and again you jumped the gun. >>>why?

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

superball, you are consistently posting incoherent nonsense.

You agreed to our rules when you signed up.

They are non-negotiable.

Failure to follow them will (and does) result in the removal of posts and the suspension of membership or banning.

You are not special, you are not exempt.

This is your FINAL warning. You will be suspended, you might be banned.

Re-read the rules and follow them. Do NOT detract further from this thread by replying to this or any subsequent modnote.

[Ophiolite]

kitkat, you were rightly offended when certain members breached the bounds of politeness and forum rules. But have you considered that they may have been provoked? How so? Here are a couple of things you said, about them.

 

Thank you, that is the first honest answer I have heard in a long time on a science forum.

Or take the converse of that: most posts that I have read in science forums, including this forum, are dishonest.

That is quite an assertion. Do you see why someone might be offended by it?

 

It can't be agreed on due to people being so arrogant in how they want it defined

Which translates as: scientists are nitpicking, semantic bullies, who must have things done their way and their way alone.

Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but that is how it came across to me and apparently to a handful of others. Again, do you see why someone might find this offensive?

 

Now regardless of the offence given, whether intentional or not, there was no justification for their childish responses. However, I hope you might be a little more cautious in how you phrase things in the future.

 

Now, getting back on topic, a point that does not seem to have been raised yet is that there are different kinds of intelligence. The verbal, spatial and mathematical problems of the standard IQ tests come to mind, but I believe some experts propose many kind of distinct intelligence facets in humans and other animals. That may expose the reason intelligence is so difficult to define: it is not one thing and, literally, lacks definition.

 

Humans have artificially classified a host of mental attributes as being facets of the same skill. They are not: they take place in different parts of the brain and are developed to different degrees in different people. Any practical definition of intelligence has to take account of this variety.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think the agreed-upon definition of intelligence was "The ability to solve mental problems." or "The ability to construct a model of a problem and solve it.". The disagreement stems from the fact that there are many kinds of problems with many solutions, and the definition of intelligence does not give any way to measure intelligence. Also, many people are more interested in certain kinds of problems, say concerning abstract concepts rather than things like being able to recognize objects' identities, sizes, and distances given a visual image of them.

 

For example, shooting a basketball through a hoop requires all sorts of calculations, first recognizing what the hoop is, then measuring the distance to it using size comparisons or trigonometry, then if bouncing off the backboard measuring the angle the board is at, then calculating the velocity and direction to throw the ball at given a uniform downward acceleration of g and perhaps also air resistance and the curvature caused by spin, then finally sending signals to hundreds of different muscles to contract and relax in such a way as to throw the ball at the calculated angle and velocity. If also playing basketball, these calculations need to be done in a fraction of a second, and should also consider the odds of making the shot and the actions of nearby players to potentially block your shot or that you might pass the ball to a teammate with better odds. Yet many people would balk at having this be considered intelligence. Similarly, computers can perform millions of calculations in the time we might do one, but they are limited in that their abilities only apply to very specific problems and are completely unable to solve novel problems (that they have not been programed to solve or learn to solve). So a computer's intelligence beats ours by far when it comes to arithmetic, but they can be as dumb as a rock for things we might find simple.

 

While we're on the topic of computers, a measureable definition for intelligence might be the number of calculations per second the entity is capable of. This is a good definition for comparing computers, but for neural networks it seems what people are interested in is the number of synapses (the more synapses the more difficult it would be to construct a computer simulation thereof). Of course calculations per second doesn't actually say much about whether all those calculations help solve a problem, so that isn't really a measure of intelligence but perhaps of complexity or calculating power.

 

Some people also place great value on the ability to learn as an aspect of intelligence. Of course people with amnesia might have a problem with that.

 

More problems occur when we allow the use of the environment in problem-solving. What about people who use pencil and paper/written notes to aid their mental capabilities, or books, or computers, or asking other people? These things might seem like cheating on a test but in reality are how things are done. But then our intelligence would depend not only on our internal state but on what we have access to, which would make it even harder to understand and measure.

[Mrs Zeta]

Intelligence is the ability to consistently and correctly select the appropriate solution from a list of available choices. This includes both mental and physical choices or challenges.

[A Tripolation]

Intelligence is the ability to consistently and correctly select the appropriate solution from a list of available choices. This includes both mental and physical choices or challenges.

 

I know a lot of people, myself included, that wouldn't be able to consistently and correctly select the appropriate solution from a list of available choices on a quantum mechanics test. Does that mean that they are not intelligent?

[mooeypoo]

I know a lot of people, myself included, that wouldn't be able to consistently and correctly select the appropriate solution from a list of available choices on a quantum mechanics test. Does that mean that they are not intelligent?

 

Also, that would make mentally ill people, and people with OCD or other conditions that have a sort of 'distorted perception' of logic attached to them, not intelligent either. Judging from the number of brilliant people despite mental illenss, I would suggest this breaks that description apart?

[Mrs Zeta]

I know a lot of people, myself included, that wouldn't be able to consistently and correctly select the appropriate solution from a list of available choices on a quantum mechanics test. Does that mean that they are not intelligent?

 

You are now talking about 'knowledge'. Intelligence is the 'ability' to select, not the 'knowledge' that the answer is correct. I can make a correct choice about what bus to take, even if I have never used it before (and so I have no knowledge about its route). My choice would be based upon many variables. People can still be intelligent and know nothing whatsoever about quantum physics or about how to change a light bulb.

[mooeypoo]

You are now talking about 'knowledge'. Intelligence is the 'ability' to select, not the 'knowledge' that the answer is correct. I can make a correct choice about what bus to take, even if I have never used it before (and so I have no knowledge about its route). My choice would be based upon many variables. People can still be intelligent and know nothing whatsoever about quantum physics or about how to change a light bulb.

 

I still disagree. The problem with mentally ill people, or people with some perception disorders, is not about knowledge, it's about ability. Their thought processes are different, they don't follow what most of society should claim as 'rational' process, but sometimes repeatedly go 'round and 'round in circles that are hard to break. They might not be geniuses, but I would still say they have intelligence.

 

This isn't about knowledge at all. It's about thought process -- that's the ability to select. Part of the problem with people with OCD, for instance, is that they're UNABLE to make correct judgment about certain things. By definition, they are unable to "select" the correct choice.

 

See what I mean?

[hypervalent_iodine]

Moo, I think that's exactly what Mrs Zeta was saying. I could be missing something, though.

[mooeypoo]

Moo, I think that's exactly what Mrs Zeta was saying. I could be missing something, though.

 

I might've misunderstood. From what I understand, the claim was that Intelligence can be defined by the ability to make rational decisions. Or rather,

 

Intelligence is the ability to consistently and correctly select the appropriate solution from a list of available choices. This includes both mental and physical choices or challenges.

 

My point was that there are people who are *unable* (hence, do not have the ability) to make select the appropriate solution for a list of available choices, and yet they're still intelligent.

[A Tripolation]

You are now talking about 'knowledge'. Intelligence is the 'ability' to select, not the 'knowledge' that the answer is correct. I can make a correct choice about what bus to take, even if I have never used it before (and so I have no knowledge about its route). My choice would be based upon many variables. People can still be intelligent and know nothing whatsoever about quantum physics or about how to change a light bulb.

 

It seems an awful lot like you're restricting intelligence to the kind of intelligence that humans have, and not the kind that animals have.

 

You can make a correct choice about something with which you have had years of experience dealing with, ie, buses. But what if some advanced race were to show you what the Grand Unifying Theory looked like and asked you to identify what each of the terms meant? You wouldn't have a clue. You would not be able to make any sort of decision backed by logic whatsoever. Going by your reasoning, these beings could deem you as "unintelligent".

[Baby Astronaut]

I liked your definition and the only word I question is how do you define "beings" in your post?

Well, "being" is too specific. Maybe we can use a phrase that's closer to meaning "object" but it covers more:

 

An energetic form's ability to perceive and compartmentalize various instances of time, space, and energy and to blend information perceived about those into a unique and coherent structure that the form can use elsewhere for problem-solving and/or to extend or protect its existence in various other familiar/unfamiliar environments and even if some of the information it has perceived and/or retained was incomplete.

[Mrs Zeta]

I am not referring to making any rational choices. It would simply be the correct choice for a specific situation, when faced with a problem that needs resolving. And this does not only refer to humans but to any agent (living organisms, swarming bacteria, or even non-living agents, such as the Global Brain or search engines)

Edited November 30, 2011 by Mrs Zeta

[kitkat]

Well, "being" is too specific. Maybe we can use a phrase that's closer to meaning "object" but it covers more:

 

An energetic form's ability to perceive and compartmentalize various instances of time, space, and energy and to blend information perceived about those into a unique and coherent structure that the form can use elsewhere for problem-solving and/or to extend or protect its existence in various other familiar/unfamiliar environments and even if some of the information it has perceived and/or retained was incomplete.

 

 

I like it.

[mooeypoo]

I am not referring to making any rational choices. It would simply be the correct choice for a specific situation, when faced with a problem that needs resolving. And this does not only refer to humans but to any agent (living organisms, swarming bacteria, or even non-living agents, such as the Global Brain or search engines)

 

 

Defining "correct choice" is a problem on its own. I don't think it's as trivial as you seem to make it sound. There might be many correct choices, in fact most situations are probably with 10 correct choice, and we only know what was "correct" after the fact when we look back.

 

But I digress.

 

My point still stands: people with perception problems (OCD included) cannot make "the correct" choice. That's the point.

 

That's how you get Hoarders who don't throw away their trash because they have personal connection with it. You give them a choice between keeping the half-rotten piece of banana that's full of gnats, and they might tell you that it's still good (ever watched "Hoarders" ?) -- I don't think you'll find many people to consider this the "right" choice, or a person like this as having the ability to make "right choices". You see what I mean?

 

The correct choice would be to toss out the garbage that rats feed off of, for your health and sanity. The correct choice would be to not get into debt over massive amount of crap they don't need.

 

They seem to have a condition that makes them UNABLE of making those 'right' choices (at least not without some mental help). They need to get help, and sometimes get long-term help.

 

Not to mention people with more severe mental illnesses like schizophrenia. A lot of them are unable to make "right" choices by definition. I believe there are a few examples of famous scientists who had that problem.

 

Are these people outside the definition of intelligence?

 

 

 

I see what you're trying to say, Mrs Zeta, I am simply trying to point out I think your definition is still insufficient.

[Mrs Zeta]

Defining "correct choice" is a problem on its own. I don't think it's as trivial as you seem to make it sound. There might be many correct choices, in fact most situations are probably with 10 correct choice, and we only know what was "correct" after the fact when we look back.

 

But I digress.

 

My point still stands: people with perception problems (OCD included) cannot make "the correct" choice. That's the point.

 

That's how you get Hoarders who don't throw away their trash because they have personal connection with it. You give them a choice between keeping the half-rotten piece of banana that's full of gnats, and they might tell you that it's still good (ever watched "Hoarders" ?) -- I don't think you'll find many people to consider this the "right" choice, or a person like this as having the ability to make "right choices". You see what I mean?

 

The correct choice would be to toss out the garbage that rats feed off of, for your health and sanity. The correct choice would be to not get into debt over massive amount of crap they don't need.

 

They seem to have a condition that makes them UNABLE of making those 'right' choices (at least not without some mental help). They need to get help, and sometimes get long-term help.

 

Not to mention people with more severe mental illnesses like schizophrenia. A lot of them are unable to make "right" choices by definition. I believe there are a few examples of famous scientists who had that problem.

 

Are these people outside the definition of intelligence?

 

 

 

I see what you're trying to say, Mrs Zeta, I am simply trying to point out I think your definition is still insufficient.

 

Don't forget that my definition is about making the correct selection from a list of suitable choices. This means that anybody (or any thing) that can do this, is defined as 'intelligent'. However, you could have low intelligence, high intelligence, medium, mild, extreme, very low etc...i.e different degrees of intelligence. An ant that has chosen correctly to turn right instead of left, has just made an intelligent decision. A schizophrenic who has correctly chosen to do this instead of that, has made an intelligent decision. The total sum of appropriate decisions/selections corresponds to the degree of intelligence. Conventionally, those who consistently make most (if not all) the correct choices, are considered as - very- intelligent. Mental illness does not have to play a part.

[EJ.August]

It looks like this thread has died down, but I had a few thoughts:

 

As for the title of this thread, personally, I don't think it is possible to define intelligence in a simplistic way at this point in time. Intelligent beings may not be qualified to define their own intelligence objectively (a conflict of interest, as someone said earlier... current understanding of intelligence already assumes that we are the most intelligent beings encountered, and bases measurements of animal intelligence on that) while at the same time, we require intelligent beings to define what an intelligent being is ... which again, they may not be able to do objectively ... it's a paradox.

 

A biological explanation for intelligence might solve the paradox, but that will require more insight into the way that brains function than we currently have. For now, we rely on observation of patterns to identify intelligence. With that ... some patterns in nature are familiar to our way of thinking and might seem like applications of intelligence when they actually are not (for example, a process like evolution seems to progress intelligently until you really understand what's going on) Similarly, you could conclude that some applications of intelligence may be so alien to us, that we wouldn't consider it as such (for instance, if a theoretical animal on earth was to possess a greater intelligence than us but not apply it to tool-making and talking, as humans do, or if it is not at all self-aware, we would never define it as intelligence until we explained intelligence biologically, and it was shown to biologically exist in their brains)

 

To assume our way of using intelligent reasoning is flawless and 100% objective would be a rather large assumption, seeing as we can't step outside our brain structure to know for sure. We intuitively believe ourselves to be the most intelligent creature on earth, and so we intuitively define intelligence as being human-like ... and that other creatures must behave like us in some way or have brain/body measurements like us to have any measurable intelligence. So a short definition of intelligence might be 'human-like behavior' and any use of intelligence in a non-human way would require a new word all together, with it's own, separate definition.

[Santalum]

People cannot agree on how to define "intelligence" and this is a problem with accepting it to explain biological processes. Why can't we simply explain it as an emergent property of memory capable cells that can alter their properties that enable them to counteract the actions of circumstances where they previously were restricted to be enslaved to the changing bioactivity of its environment. It is through experience and trying different alternatives that we can find the best solution to overcome a repetative problem so why isn't this view shared at the molecular level that as a whole perform the same methods of problem solving just like we do at our level?

 

 

 

From Wikipedia

 

from "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" (1994), an editorial statement by fifty-two researchers: A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.^[5]

 

It seems clear to me from this definition that consciousness is a pre-requisit of intelligence.

 

Does this help us folks?

[Ophiolite]

It seems clear to me from this definition that consciousness is a pre-requisit of intelligence.

 

Does this help us folks?

Only, perhaps, in regard to human intelligence. There is abundant evidence of intelligence beyond homo sapiens.

[Santalum]

Only, perhaps, in regard to human intelligence. There is abundant evidence of intelligence beyond homo sapiens.

 

 

Agreed. But all those other species have one thing in common with humans - consciousness.