From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Tue Jul 28 09:41:22 EDT 1992
Article 6450 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Defining other intelligence out of existence
Message-ID: <1992Jul14.225140.6372@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
References: <BILL.92Jul13114604@cortex.nsma.arizona.edu> <1992Jul14.031930.3423@mp.cs.niu.edu> <3118@creatures.cs.vt.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1992 22:51:40 GMT
Lines: 76

In article <3118@creatures.cs.vt.edu> sahle@csgrad.cs.vt.edu (Eskinder Sahle) writes:
>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.

>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.

  You have interpreted this in a way I didn't intend.  Perhaps I was not
clear enough.  I was not referring to adaptability of the species, but to
adaptability of an individual within that species.  A species such as
cockroach can survive over a long period by finding a relatively stable
ecological niche, so that the change in conditions is sufficiently slow
that evolution can keep up.  That does not require much individual
adaptability, and does not indicate intelligence.  An individual dinosaur
had to deal with a wide variety of conditions, and adapt to those within
its lifetime.  Evolution is not involved within the lifetime of a single
individual.  The longevity of a species says very little about
intelligence.  The breadth of circumstances an individual can adapt to
within its life time does say something about intelligence.

  I believe it is true that cockroaches are not very adaptable, and are
not very successful in survival.  Individual cockroaches, that is.  As a
species, they compensate for limited individual survivability by having
a high reproductive rate.

  Perhaps we could say that I am referring to a horizontal adaptability,
while Darwinian adaptability is a vertical adaptability.

>                      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:

  It is indeed a doubtful proposition.  But again it is not what I intended
at all.  This is much closer to measuring intelligence by problem solving
(the problem of dealing with the economic system).

  I did not refer to adaptation to specific circumstances, but to the
breadth of adaptation.  An individual who adapts poorly to our economic
system may perhaps adapt much more broadly to say an artistic and creative
culture.  There may be just as much breadth in adaptability, but the
adaptability is centered at a different point.  So failure in dealing with
the economy does not by itself say anything about intelligence.

>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,

  You can go beyond this.  History has many examples where western culture
has confronted primitive cultures, and considered the members of the
primitive culture to be far less intelligent.  But if the primitive society
had been examined in terms of its ability to deal with a wide variety of
circumstances, including perhaps flood, famine, hostile neighbors,
marauding wild animals, etc, the intelligence of these natives would have
been more widely respected.

>                                                      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.

 Well, I hope I have clarified things sufficiently for you to give it
further consideration.



