Against 'intelligence'

JJ

The way I understand it everything has it's inherent intelligence. The amoeba you talk about is able to respond to changes in it's environment so that it becomes ever more adapted to it.

So could the fish that developed lungs to breathe air. It's inherent intelligence enabled it to adapt to the new environment.

This intelligence is the only intelligence. It is the same intelligence we humans utilize, only, we are more complex creatures, so our experience of it is much richer.

So you could create individuals, machine or organisms, that are infinitely more complex than humans, and they would still have the same intelligence. Only their complexity would enable them to glean much more out of it than what humans can today.

0 Replies

I can't agree with that, Cyracuz. (Strange, since you and I usually do agree.) I think the gulf between an amoeba's or a fish's reaction to its environment and a human's purposive decision-making abilities is so vast as to make the two activities diffetrent in kind, not just degree. If we are to accept your definition, then the entire concept of "intelligence" loses all meaning. Or, perhaps, it is your intent to demonstrate that?

0 Replies

If you take the definition of intelligence I suggested that it is the abilty to cope to one's own satisfaction then the ameoba is as intelligent as any human being who is so coping. I'll admit I can't say whether an amoeba is satisfied with it's lot.I'm presuming that. I know some very intelligent people by our standards who don't even suggest that they can cope to their own satisfaction.Which basically means that they can't adapt themselves to their circumstances.If an amoeba could talk it would say they were dumb.

Maybe the higher one's IQ the dumber one is by nature's standards.Which would go some way to explaining man's constant battle with nature to force it to do his bidding.He wishes to prove he's superior to nature so that he can impose his version of intelligence.Transcendentalism.Sharks are for watching on telly.Monkeys are best though.
IMHO.He He.

But sodding weeds eh? What are they for?

0 Replies

Merry Andrew wrote:

I can't agree with that, Cyracuz. (Strange, since you and I usually do agree.) I think the gulf between an amoeba's or a fish's reaction to its environment and a human's purposive decision-making abilities is so vast as to make the two activities diffetrent in kind, not just degree. If we are to accept your definition, then the entire concept of "intelligence" loses all meaning. Or, perhaps, it is your intent to demonstrate that?

Yes, the meaning of 'intelligence' evaporates on inspection.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

JJ

The way I understand it everything has it's inherent intelligence. The amoeba you talk about is able to respond to changes in it's environment so that it becomes ever more adapted to it.

So could the fish that developed lungs to breathe air. It's inherent intelligence enabled it to adapt to the new environment.

This intelligence is the only intelligence. It is the same intelligence we humans utilize, only, we are more complex creatures, so our experience of it is much richer.

So you could create individuals, machine or organisms, that are infinitely more complex than humans, and they would still have the same intelligence. Only their complexity would enable them to glean much more out of it than what humans can today.

Intelligence isn't a property that something has. It's a means of defining/comparing behaviour to a standard.
You are right about the machines, etc. But I would not say that a creature becomes adapted to its environment if a creature is defined by a list of attributes.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

If you take the definition of intelligence I suggested that it is the abilty to cope to one's own satisfaction then the ameoba is as intelligent as any human being who is so coping. I'll admit I can't say whether an amoeba is satisfied with it's lot.I'm presuming that. I know some very intelligent people by our standards who don't even suggest that they can cope to their own satisfaction.Which basically means that they can't adapt themselves to their circumstances.If an amoeba could talk it would say they were dumb.

Maybe the higher one's IQ the dumber one is by nature's standards.Which would go some way to explaining man's constant battle with nature to force it to do his bidding.He wishes to prove he's superior to nature so that he can impose his version of intelligence.Transcendentalism.Sharks are for watching on telly.Monkeys are best though.
IMHO.He He.

But sodding weeds eh? What are they for?

The ability to cope with life to ones own satisfaction is not the same as living to one's own satisfaction. The former case sets up a standard, such as intelligence, and the latter does not.
I also do not think that we can search for a definition. We always make a definition.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

If you take the definition of intelligence I suggested that it is the abilty to cope to one's own satisfaction then the ameoba is as intelligent as any human being who is so coping. I'll admit I can't say whether an amoeba is satisfied with it's lot.I'm presuming that. I know some very intelligent people by our standards who don't even suggest that they can cope to their own satisfaction.Which basically means that they can't adapt themselves to their circumstances.If an amoeba could talk it would say they were dumb.

Maybe the higher one's IQ the dumber one is by nature's standards.Which would go some way to explaining man's constant battle with nature to force it to do his bidding.He wishes to prove he's superior to nature so that he can impose his version of intelligence.Transcendentalism.Sharks are for watching on telly.Monkeys are best though.
IMHO.He He.

But sodding weeds eh? What are they for?

But, don't you see, that's the whole point of the difference between human intelligence and other intelligences. The human being is aware of his/her shortcomings whereas the amoeba --as far as we can tell -- simply reacts to its environment in a reflexive way. It could be argued, of course, that we don't know this, that we only assume that the amoeba is not aware of anything "higher" than its environment. But to argue that would fly in the face of all human scientific inquiry into neural functions. The nervous system of the amoeba is not equipped to enable what we call "thought." Much the same is true of mechanical intelligences. The computer I am typing at is capable of solving problems that would tax my poor brain and it can do so in a trice. But it cannot choose which problems to solve and which to put aside. A human mind, on the other hand, can prioritize and can reason at a level which is quite different from that of the machine. I doubt that a standard definition of "intelligence" which would apply equally to humans, fish, single-cell organisms and complex electronic apparatus is possible. Perhaps we need a new word if that's the kind of "intelligence" we're talking about.

0 Replies

I'm adapted to the nutrient bed I swim in.That's why I have to go to the pub now.Really intelligent humans will be stopping in knitting or gawping at the dross on a TV.If you don't engage media you will come last in pub quizes and you will be defined as dumb.

Good innit?

I will return-I hope.

0 Replies

Merry Andrew wrote:

Quote:

If we are to accept your definition, then the entire concept of "intelligence" loses all meaning. Or, perhaps, it is your intent to demonstrate that?

No, that was not my intent. I was merely examining the subject from a different angle. I am imagining everything as one bulk of information, so to speak. Like a server that we can tap into when we want.

But to get back to the fish with lungs. It did what it could do. The forces of nature were at work around it, making it seek out dry places for unknown reasons. Simultaneously the forces of nature were at work within it, modifying it. I like to think of this as "life's inherent intelligence".

Similarly, man has stood for thousands of years gazing at the moon and dreaming. Lets call this external influence. The forces of nature at work around us. Now, the forces of nature are at work within us as well, compelling us to invent a rocket and fly to the moon.

So it is the same primal drive, the force that made the fish develop lungs and man travel to the moon. The forces of nature at work both outside and within us.

The thing I am wondering about is this: When you see a tree, where does the information reside? In you or the tree? I'd say the tree. I think of all interaction as communication. In looking at the tree I am passive, at the recieving end.

And that is intelligence. Not knowing a lot of stuff, or being very clever. These things are irrelevant. What most people mean when they talk about intelligence is patience. They have a go at a problem. Take one look and go, "I'm not intelligent enough". Well, all the information is there. You do not need any more info than what you recieved. So it comes down to recieving this information, and that requires patience.

I'm not particularly smart. Still I usually solve most riddles and problems people throw at me. It is because I understand that it is communication. I do not have to wrestle the riddle for the answer. I have to listen. The answer is there, and if I do not see it it is because I'm not looking with a clear mind.

Ops... reading my post I realize that I have just confused myself. Still I'll post it, maybe I'll confuse you too.

This link is to a game called "petals around the rose". It is said that the smarter you are, the longer it will take you to crack it. It took me 25 minutes. Most of the people I've showed it to didn't crack it, simply because they didn't have the patience. So intelligence is not having a kick ass mind. It is giving it an oportuniy to work undisturbed. Crack the riddle, and you'll see what I mean.

http://crux.baker.edu/cdavis09/roses.html

0 Replies

Let us say that I am a fraction less than half as intelligent as Cyr is and it takes me one hour to solve the riddle.For which patience amounting to pain I would need to employ to spend an hour on a riddle when there are so many other interesting things to do.

In that case then,my case,what difference is there in principle between an hour on the riddle and 30secs with my hand in a candle flame?And what could this pain be in the service of other than vanity?Hence I decline the link with all due respect to those who can solve it faster than Cyr and am left wondering whether or not we could use the riddle to achieve an objective hierarchy of intelligence and thus do away with all the schools and all that goes with them.

What do you make of the Oracle Cyr-that's a riddle.

0 Replies

If your going to carry on confusing yourselves with innapropriate meanderings, you need to accept the evolution of mankind is going to be dramatically changed from what might have been a natural course due to the alarming advances in technology.

Personal improvements in our mental and physical qualities plus our breeding capabilities will be controlled by the puppet master in any event.

Wouldn't it be a pity if we became extinct by the pressing of a delete button?

0 Replies

If I thought that I would become extinct through pressing the "delete" button I definitely wouldn't press it.I don't know what the best thing is for "we" to do.

0 Replies

Point taken spendius. Now this riddle that I refered to isn't an important one, so I see the relevance of the "hand over the candle" comparison.

Besides, if you'd solved the puzzle in an hour you would not be less intelligent than me, you would be more than two times as intelligent... Smile

(The real issue is that the more education you have, the longer it will take you).

Merry Andrew wrote:

Quote:

The human being is aware of his/her shortcomings whereas the amoeba --as far as we can tell -- simply reacts to its environment in a reflexive way.

I still say that the amoeba and the human being have the same intelligence, the only difference is that they are different creatures. When the pressure ups the amoeba reacts, and so does the human being. I am disregarding method of reaction. A human being reacting in a reflexive way has many more options than the fairly simple amoeba, but it is the same reaction pattern. The differences are a matter of experience, not intelligence.

Also, I am under the impression that people of the modern world are more in tune with MA's description of an amoeba's reaction than human. Unaware of his shortcomings, just shooting blind. That's the western way of life.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Point taken spendius. Now this riddle that I refered to isn't an important one, so I see the relevance of the "hand over the candle" comparison.

Besides, if you'd solved the puzzle in an hour you would not be less intelligent than me, you would be more than two times as intelligent...
(The real issue is that the more education you have, the longer it will take you).

Merry Andrew wrote:

Quote:
The human being is aware of his/her shortcomings whereas the amoeba --as far as we can tell -- simply reacts to its environment in a reflexive way.

I still say that the amoeba and the human being have the same intelligence, the only difference is that they are different creatures. When the pressure ups the amoeba reacts, and so does the human being. I am disregarding method of reaction. A human being reacting in a reflexive way has many more options than the fairly simple amoeba, but it is the same reaction pattern. The differences are a matter of experience, not intelligence.

Also, I am under the impression that people of the modern world are more in tune with MA's description of an amoeba's reaction than human. Unaware of his shortcomings, just shooting blind. That's the western way of life.

Quote:

I still say that the amoeba and the human being have the same intelligence, the only difference is that they are different creatures.

I thought I said that.

0 Replies

I think you did John. I'm just agreeing. Smile

Against 'intelligence'

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know