From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!uunet!vtserf!creatures!csgrad.cs.vt.edu!sahle Tue Jul 28 09:41:22 EDT 1992
Article 6449 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!uunet!vtserf!creatures!csgrad.cs.vt.edu!sahle
>From: sahle@csgrad.cs.vt.edu (Eskinder Sahle)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining other intelligence out of existence
Message-ID: <3118@creatures.cs.vt.edu>
Date: 14 Jul 92 21:50:17 GMT
References: <1992Jul10.202045.23753@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> <BILL.92Jul13114604@cortex.nsma.arizona.edu> <1992Jul14.031930.3423@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Sender: usenet@creatures.cs.vt.edu
Organization: VPI&SU Computer Science Department, Blacksburg, VA
Lines: 36

In article <1992Jul14.031930.3423@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

> [...]
> I would much rather look at intelligence as something which has evolved.
>Thus I would measure intelligence in terms of a creature's ability to
>adapt to a broad variety of circumstances, since surely this adaptability
>is one of the forces in the evolution of intelligence.  A definition in
>terms of adaptability indirectly includes problem solving, since problem
>solving is a useful tool for this adaptability.  But it removes much of
>the homocentric bias, since the problems which affect adaptability become
>the important ones, while solving artificial problems does not account
>for much.  We would then measure the intelligence of an alien life form
>in terms of its ability to adapt to a broad variety of circumstances which
>were relevant to that alien.

I agree that there is a need to broaden the concept of intelligence to
include notions other than problem solving.  But I think there is the danger
of including matters that are surely foreign to the conception of
intelligence.  If you make adaptability and success in survival (a
consequence of adaptability) the central factor, then matters of
evolutionary circumstances (in the Darwinian sense) start intruding.  That is,
for example, according to your argument, dinosaurs were not possessing of 
enough intelligence because they were not able to survive as a species,
whereas the cock-roach, having survived as a species from time immemorial,
are acutely bright.   A similar argument can be made on the social
sphere: Accrording to you, people who are unable to do well in an economic 
system (i.e., adapt to the system) are of inferior intelligence to those who
are more successful.  But this is in the least a doubtful proposition:
There are many circumstances, historical as well as structural that
might come in a bright person's way, e.g., bad schooling, a detrimental
home atmosphere, prejudice in society, and so forth.  All of this,
in my opinion, indicates that adaptability is not a crucial measure
of intelligence (though an important one), and that by using it, you
are including factors that do not measure intelligence.

Ahmed Bouzid


