Against 'intelligence'

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

"One day Man or his machines will become so intelligent as to surpass Man as he is today as far as Man now surpasses the amoeba". This image holds many spell-bound. We may resolve to pursue this magnificent goal and lend our support to its promoters - the technicians of progress.

But let us instead have fun. Let us stalk this image, this crippled beast of the conceptual savanna; let us catch it by the tail and bloodily rendering it limb from limb, feed and enrich ourselves and rid the world of a sickly adventurer.

We already know what intelligence can be in its most advanced form. It is the immediate solution of a task, as against the lower intelligence associated with needing time to solve a task. But even the amoeba can immediately solve its tasks! Every creature, or machine, has its own tasks, if it bothers or cares to define them, and can perform its tasks immediately and with 'infinite intelligence'. So much for the vision of the development of ever greater intelligence.

We would not perform in the amoeba's world of objects, and neither would the amoeba perform in our world of objects. For just as knowledge is no more than the report of perception, and just as perception is as immediate for us as it is for the proud amoeba, the amoeba shall not be ranked as less than humankind's equal. And rightly so. For reports of perception, knowledge, are not limited to pen and ink.

Surely it is ridiculous, and against common understanding to regard the amoeba as the equal of the human in intelligence? I do not think so. But we need a theory of objects. Each creature comes with its own world of objects and their associated tasks. There is no trafficking, no relationship between the objects of the world of one creature to the world of another; no comparisons between them can be made by a testing model, for the model is necessarily fixed to a particular world of objects.

Now we see the mark of stupidity upon the notion of intelligence. It hops and stumbles. We have it by the tail. For the amoeba's stupidity in our world is no less than our stupidity in its. So let us feed, and lap the blood of this intelligence, spawn of the scientist and the proud. Look! we see its entrails, let us examine them: we see fixed objects. Intelligence, as it is measured, presents us with a world of fixed objects. Intelligence implores us to regard its fixed objects as universal, and that these objects and their tasks are the objects and tasks of all creatures and beings. How can this be so? we ask; and intelligence cries out - that objects and tasks are presented by the world and not made. But in vain, and our teeth sink deeper.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,908 • Replies: 36

No top replies

What, exactly. is intelligence? I mean, going beyond the standard dictionary definition, how would you define it? I think your thesis -- which is certainly arguable -- depends on that definition.

0 Replies

I just have time before I put my "Boozer's World" intelligence in gear to say that JJ defines it quite well up there.

Maybe it is the ability to cope with one's world to one's own satisfaction.If it is that then ambition is stupid because it is posited on permanent dissatisfaction.But indifferent curiosity,which is what science really is,simply entertains.

Maybe we try to create machine intelligence simply to see if it can be done.We stalk it for fun(ds).But they will never make a machine that can go in a pub,wink at the barmaid,taste its pint and tell the landlord that his beer is piss and to get another up.A machine would drink anything.

JJ is trying to wind up the paranoia.It's a good effort though.I can imagine his giggles.

0 Replies

All right, Spendius, fair enough. But when we speak of machine intelligence are we speaking of the same thing as human intelligence? Are the two concepts identical? Or even very similar? Machine intelligence, after all, is no more than the ability to crunch numbers. In this specific endeavor it is, of course, far superior to human intelligence at this stage of human evolutionary development. But is it the same thing? True human intelligence, I believe, involves a certain amount of intuition of which machines are quite incapable.

0 Replies

Re: Against 'intelligence'

John Jones wrote:

We already know what intelligence can be in its most advanced form. It is the immediate solution of a task, as against the lower intelligence associated with needing time to solve a task.

No. Intelligence is the artful and efficient solution of tasks.

Quote:

But even the amoeba can immediately solve its tasks! Every creature, or machine, has its own tasks, if it bothers or cares to define them, and can perform its tasks immediately and with 'infinite intelligence'. So much for the vision of the development of ever greater intelligence.

We would not perform in the amoeba's world of objects, and neither would the amoeba perform in our world of objects.

It requires no intelligence to squirm around until you accidentally bump into food and then engulf it, and die if your immediate environment does not meet your needs. Intelligence is the ability to manipulate your environment such that food is always available to you with a minimal amount of effort and to protect yourself from danger. It requires artful intelligence to cultivate and prepare a variety of foods in such a way that meals are a delight to the senses as well as a source of nutrients.

0 Replies

Re: Against 'intelligence'

Terry wrote:

John Jones wrote:
We already know what intelligence can be in its most advanced form. It is the immediate solution of a task, as against the lower intelligence associated with needing time to solve a task.

No. Intelligence is the artful and efficient solution of tasks.

Quote:
But even the amoeba can immediately solve its tasks! Every creature, or machine, has its own tasks, if it bothers or cares to define them, and can perform its tasks immediately and with 'infinite intelligence'. So much for the vision of the development of ever greater intelligence.

We would not perform in the amoeba's world of objects, and neither would the amoeba perform in our world of objects.

It requires no intelligence to squirm around until you accidentally bump into food and then engulf it

If we say, in our defence of intelligence, that there is a world of objects presented by the world and that they are universal, to all creatures, then we must define a property that makes them universal. You have defined such a universal property of objects as that which we can bump into, that affect us materially. This is a good definition. It is simple. I did think of it myself. I also had an answer to it. It reduces assessment of intelligence to the number of objects that are, or can be, bumped into.

0 Replies

intelligence acc to me is one's ability to tackle day to day problems effectively

0 Replies

Prince El wrote:

intelligence acc to me is one's ability to tackle day to day problems effectively

yes thats just what the amoeba says

0 Replies

Merry Andrew wrote:

What, exactly. is intelligence? I mean, going beyond the standard dictionary definition, how would you define it? I think your thesis -- which is certainly arguable -- depends on that definition.

Here is a short discussion, and definition, of intelligence.

If we are to regard intelligence as an ability then my definition would be this: intelligence is the ability to recognise a standard set of recognisable objects. The term ability is not helpful however, because it introduces an unknown ('ability' - see bottom).

Rather, we could define intelligence in this way: Intelligence is the numerical difference between a set of standard recognisable objects and a set of objects recognised as belonging to that set. What is an object in this context? The objects are taken from the world that the creature that is being tested inhabits. For example, visual, linguistic etc, for the human. The test that is constructed for IQ also includes objects that affect all the objects in the test, such as time constraints. The standard set of recognisable objects needs to be constructed carefully, and is different for each species. There are virtually no cross-species objects.*

There is no need to construe intelligence as an 'ability'. If there is confusion over what IQ is testing, then the confusion is really over the nature of the objects chosen for the test and we should not search for a mythical 'ability' to put the confusion to rights. The test for IQ should be clear enough and on that count need not introduce vague notions such as 'ability'. This is why, given the method for testing, intelligence is adequately, if not fully described as a number. Any other associations made with the 'size' of that number are socially driven by practical considerations or vanity.

*The introduction of cross-species objects to the intelligence test makes it unrecognisable as a test.

0 Replies

All that is based on the assumption that what we call progress is a sign of intelligence because JJ is a progress man like me and thus intelligent by a circularity which is beneath contempt.I'm not as confident as JJ but not far off.Some make the argument that it is all a big mistake and thus,by a circularity just as bad as the previous one,JJ and I are dumb,which is the opposite of intelligent.

What do you make of that?I think the ameoba is dumb.And dogs are really dumb.

0 Replies

JJ, I am particularly intrigued by your statement that "any other associations made with the 'size' of that number are socially driven...etc." Socially driven. Does that statement not imply that any meaningful measurement of the difference between a standard set of objects and a set of objects recognized as belonging to that set has to take into consideration what we describe as cultural differences? Is it even possible to measure the intelligence of members of the same species (homo sapiens sapiens) who come from divergent environments by the same test? Even if we discard all verbal and culture-specific items from such a test, how is it possible to compare (numerically) the intelligence of an Australian Aborigine and an Inuit from Alaska?

0 Replies

John Jones wrote:

Here is a short discussion, and definition, of intelligence.

If we are to regard intelligence as an ability then my definition would be this: intelligence is the ability to recognise a standard set of recognisable objects. The term ability is not helpful however, because it introduces an unknown ('ability' - see bottom).

Rather, we could define intelligence in this way: Intelligence is the numerical difference between a set of standard recognisable objects and a set of objects recognised as belonging to that set. What is an object in this context? The objects are taken from the world that the creature that is being tested inhabits. For example, visual, linguistic etc, for the human. The test that is constructed for IQ also includes objects that affect all the objects in the test, such as time constraints. The standard set of recognisable objects needs to be constructed carefully, and is different for each species. There are virtually no cross-species objects.*

There is no need to construe intelligence as an 'ability'. If there is confusion over what IQ is testing, then the confusion is really over the nature of the objects chosen for the test and we should not search for a mythical 'ability' to put the confusion to rights. The test for IQ should be clear enough and on that count need not introduce vague notions such as 'ability'. This is why, given the method for testing, intelligence is adequately, if not fully described as a number. Any other associations made with the 'size' of that number are socially driven by practical considerations or vanity.

*The introduction of cross-species objects to the intelligence test makes it unrecognisable as a test.

Confused crap, but some good ideas. Just don't shove it through our letterbox until its dried out.

0 Replies

Merry Andrew wrote:

JJ, I am particularly intrigued by your statement that "any other associations made with the 'size' of that number are socially driven...etc." Socially driven. Does that statement not imply that any meaningful measurement of the difference between a standard set of objects and a set of objects recognized as belonging to that set has to take into consideration what we describe as cultural differences? Is it even possible to measure the intelligence of members of the same species (homo sapiens sapiens) who come from divergent environments by the same test? Even if we discard all verbal and culture-specific items from such a test, how is it possible to compare (numerically) the intelligence of an Australian Aborigine and an Inuit from Alaska?

Yes, I can't imagine individual or species differences attributed to the value of the intelligence number to be anything but socially driven value differences imposed on the result of an IQ test.
The number (IQ) of an individual that expresses the difference between the number of a standardised set of objects and the number of those objects recognised, is not the same number if it is used to compare differences between individuals, clans or species. It is not the same number because the applications are different. The number arising from the IQ test is particular to that context, and cannot be used intra-individually or between clans or species.
Differences in IQ are not heirarchical unless they are placed in a heirarchical system. IQ does not establish a heirarchichal system needed for comparisons. It merely states differences of number. I am thinking on my feet here.

0 Replies

John Jones wrote:

Merry Andrew wrote:
JJ, I am particularly intrigued by your statement that "any other associations made with the 'size' of that number are socially driven...etc." Socially driven. Does that statement not imply that any meaningful measurement of the difference between a standard set of objects and a set of objects recognized as belonging to that set has to take into consideration what we describe as cultural differences? Is it even possible to measure the intelligence of members of the same species (homo sapiens sapiens) who come from divergent environments by the same test? Even if we discard all verbal and culture-specific items from such a test, how is it possible to compare (numerically) the intelligence of an Australian Aborigine and an Inuit from Alaska?

Yes, I can't imagine individual or species differences attributed to the value of the intelligence number to be anything but socially driven value differences imposed on the result of an IQ test.
The number (IQ) of an individual that expresses the difference between the number of a standardised set of objects and the number of those objects recognised, is not the same number if it is used to compare differences between individuals, clans or species. It is not the same number because the applications are different. The number arising from the IQ test is particular to that context, and cannot be used intra-individually or between clans or species.
Differences in IQ are not heirarchical unless they are placed in a heirarchical system. IQ does not establish a heirarchichal system needed for comparisons. It merely states differences of number. I am thinking on my feet here.

If that is so, then does the IQ have any practical (i.e.pragmatic) value? Or usefulness (again, "usefulness" in a practcal sense). A number that has no universal or near-universal application seems to me to be meaningless, without value.

0 Replies

I wrote-

Quote:

Maybe it is the ability to cope with one's world to one's own satisfaction.

Have you considered the "one's own satisfaction" aspect.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I wrote-

Quote:
Maybe it is the ability to cope with one's world to one's own satisfaction.

Have you considered the "one's own satisfaction" aspect.

No. Your running words together does my head in. But the above sentence seems ok. In answer -
1. If one is feeling miserable, would that mean that one has poor ability?
2. Also, do I have a relationship with my world? a relationship typified by coping? and that is helped by abilities? or is my world and me the same?
3. Otherwise, the moral of your example seems fine. What need do we have of an IQ test, if my world is a world of my objects? It is these that are my concern, and not those of the IQ test. However, you introduced a heirarchical measuring system for 'my world', but who would provide the measure? If 'one's own satisfaction' alone is considered, then I go along with it.

0 Replies

Merry Andrew wrote:

John Jones wrote:
Merry Andrew wrote:
JJ, I am particularly intrigued by your statement that "any other associations made with the 'size' of that number are socially driven...etc." Socially driven. Does that statement not imply that any meaningful measurement of the difference between a standard set of objects and a set of objects recognized as belonging to that set has to take into consideration what we describe as cultural differences? Is it even possible to measure the intelligence of members of the same species (homo sapiens sapiens) who come from divergent environments by the same test? Even if we discard all verbal and culture-specific items from such a test, how is it possible to compare (numerically) the intelligence of an Australian Aborigine and an Inuit from Alaska?

Yes, I can't imagine individual or species differences attributed to the value of the intelligence number to be anything but socially driven value differences imposed on the result of an IQ test.
The number (IQ) of an individual that expresses the difference between the number of a standardised set of objects and the number of those objects recognised, is not the same number if it is used to compare differences between individuals, clans or species. It is not the same number because the applications are different. The number arising from the IQ test is particular to that context, and cannot be used intra-individually or between clans or species.
Differences in IQ are not heirarchical unless they are placed in a heirarchical system. IQ does not establish a heirarchichal system needed for comparisons. It merely states differences of number. I am thinking on my feet here.

If that is so, then does the IQ have any practical (i.e.pragmatic) value? Or usefulness (again, "usefulness" in a practcal sense). A number that has no universal or near-universal application seems to me to be meaningless, without value.

If the objects of the IQ test represent those found in life generally then it seems we might be able to conclude that that those with a higher IQ number (difference between standard set of objects and those recognised) are able generally to be able to work quicker, be more productive. There is no need to hypothesize an 'ability' to explain this. The problem with the IQ test is that it uses generalized objects through which it purports to show social advantages. But social advantages are found only in particular cases. If there is a significant difference between a socially advantaged individual and the social advantages purportedly demonstrated by their generalized IQ number, then the IQ number has no grounds for application, unless it is of a type of creature not found in a social setting (see below).

The danger of hypothesizing an 'ability' to explain differences in IQ is that a claim is made, even for socially advantaged creatures, that IQ number always has grounds for application. However, the claim can only be made against a peculiar type of creature - an isolated creature, an individual, apart from its social setting- and yet it is only in a social setting that IQ presents any meaning. The IQ test assumes isolated individuals; it attempts to back-up this assumption by claiming that socially isolated individuals must exist because they have 'abilities' revealed by the test.

This points to a contradiction in the sense of the IQ number: the value of the IQ number is represented in a social setting, yet it claims to measure individual traits. There is a schism between value and ability, between public and private.

'yet' added above

0 Replies

JJ asked-

Quote:

1. If one is feeling miserable, would that mean that one has poor ability?

It is extreme but in average cases I would say yes.
I would prefer not to go into detail though.

On No2 I would say ability helps in coping but I would also stress that being difficult to satisfy requires abilities above the average and thus that people who have a large range of wants with average abilities will be permanently miserable and as they will be reluctant to find fault in themselves they will become socially inept and pile on more misery as a result.A person with high ability and a simple range of wants will likely be happiest.I might even consider that having a simple range of wants is a sign of ability especially when the person satisfies those wants with ease.

IQ tests seem to me to test a congruence between the tested and the tester in such a way that the tester gets an ego boost by arranging for someone similar to himself to get a high score.I have seen many instances where a high score was rewarded by an occupation which the tested was unsuitable for and,as a consequence,spends his life in misery.

0 Replies

Get the point lads! The only intelligence worth having is working out the fastest and most cost effective manner of getting the flash birds in bed (especially the flash birds) pondering about anything else will leave you as effective as cabbages, cheap, plenty of iron, and grow anywhere.

Spendius has the idea with the wink at the barmaid, and robbing the money grabbing landlord of a pint or two once in a while. That is true intelligence.

He probably read the scene, because he rarely expresses so much sense, if I hadn't witnessed some of the mumbo jumbo the tyke had been writing for months, I would have welcomed him as a member of the Five F's Society without hesitation.

And you Jack, sorry mate, if your getting your balls strangled with the way your head works, you should get yourself admitted and sit in a corner of a nice room playing with your dick.

We have no real idea, who or what we are, and your classing intelligence with isometrics and geometrics, when the only real enjoyment a man can rely on is getting his end away.

Seventy odd years if your lucky and the first fourteen don't even count! You want to read Darwins theory and take the piss out of your forefathers who can't even think up the idea of a blonde haired beauty in a thong, thigh length black leather boots (with heels), a skimpy see through bra and she's all yours.

The apes are still bonking like pigs, only they don't squeal as well.

Now the tyke, against the tester. Where in the name of laying women as a past time have the men gone?

0 Replies

They've been feminised old chap.Goodstyle.

By heck you are slow on the uptake.

0 Replies

Against 'intelligence'

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know