From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pipex!unipalm!uknet!qmw-dcs!abreu Wed Aug 12 16:52:35 EDT 1992
Article 6577 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pipex!unipalm!uknet!qmw-dcs!abreu
>From: abreu@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Abreu)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Communication and Intelligence
Message-ID: <1992Aug6.233605.21343@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
Date: 6 Aug 92 23:36:05 GMT
References: <1992Jul31.233457.16966@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Usenet News System)
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London
Lines: 88
Nntp-Posting-Host: it127.dcs.qmw.ac.uk

In <1992Aug6.183619.8193@sequent.com> bfish@sequent.com (Brett Fishburne) 
writes:

 [... [I agree with everything up to] ...]

 > ANALYSIS:  Throughout the process of growth and development prior to birth,
 > the fetus is exposed to many forms of communication.  Presumably
 > intelligence begins to develop as quickly as this communication can be
 > absorbed, so there is no child born (who can communicate) without
 > intelligence.  But this is not our experience, there are numerous children
 > born who can communicate fine, but do not exhibit intelligence in keeping
 > with the quality of communication which they receive.

REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM REFUTATION: Although an interesting concept, I wouldn't 
expect to discuss quantum mechanics with a baby, no matter how much of the 
topic the fetus was exposed to. At any rate, classifying a newly born child as 
intelligent is stretching the point a bit. The fact that babies act purely by 
instinct is well documented medically. After birth, no baby can be expected to 
behave intelligently for a simple reason: They've had very limited interaction 
with the outside world.


 > ANALYSIS:  There are children who are born without the capability to
 > experience certain forms of communication (e.g. deaf).  Despite that, these
 > children appear to develop at the same rate as their peers.  In fact,
 > detection of deafness is particularly difficult in young children and both
 > casual and experienced observers have been surprised to learn of the
 > deafness. In keeping with the thesis we would expect to see corresponding
 > deficits in intelligence, which have not been discovered.

LOGICAL REFUTATION: We would NOT expect to see corresponding deficits in 
intelligence unless we assume that there is no redundancy whatsoever in the 
five senses. This is false.


 > ANALYSIS:  One particularly notable person has lived an extemely 
 > "intelligent" life without the benefit of the vast majority of means of
 > communication we enjoy.  Helen Keller (as she says in her own words later
 > in her life) was frustrated by her inability to communicate, but she was
 > unquestionably intelligent.  In fact, it is hard to believe that if she
 > had not been _very_ intelligent, she would have understood the form of
 > sign language that her teacher was able to convey to her.  This method
 > of "quality" communication came very late in her life, but her intelligence
 > was unquestionable amply "developed".

SARCASTIC REFUTATION: What kind of things was she "unquestionably intelligent" 
about? In other words, how did she COME TO KNOW about these things?


 > ANALYSIS:  If increasing levels of communication increases intelligence,
 > then it would seem that when one was pondering something very complicated,
 > one would wish to do so in an environment which provided high levels of
 > communicative activity.

No, it doesn't. One PONDERS in silence, in the dark, etc. One LEARNS by
communicating (in all the forms you described).

 > Despite that, scholars have always gone *away* from areas of high
 > communication.  Traditionally places of learning and deep thought have
 > been silent with a minimum of any communicative activity to allow
 > individuals to concentrate.  In fact, both Ben Franklin and Thomas Edison
 > claimed that they got their best work done late at night when noone else
 > was around.  Once more, this type of example seems to fly in the face of
 > the thesis.

The example doesn't even crawl in the face of the thesis. :-) You see,
presumably, they were able to do their creative work BECAUSE they were
intelligent.

 > CONCLUSION:  It is impossible to determine whether or not "communication" of
 > any sort is necessary for intelligence, we simply don't have any practical
 > cases of no communication.  The logical extensions and corollaries which
 > fall from this sort of thesis, however, lead to conclusions which fly in the
 > face of experience.  From this analysis it seems that communication may or
 > may not be tied to intelligence, but while it may be a necessary condition,
 > it does not seem to be a causal condition.
 > Any thoughts?

Just a thought experiment. Imagine this being is born. We'll call it Quayle.
>From birth, we deprive it of any form of communication: it won't see; it won't 
taste; it won't smell; it won't hear; it won't have tactile sensations. But
like human beings, Quayle is born with the POTENTIAL to be very intelligent.
Now, if you think about it a bit, ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING related to your
intelligence has some outside influence. QUESTION: What are Quayle's chanches 
of developing his intelligence to the point where he could become, say, the 
Vice-President of the United States?

Hamilton Abreu


