From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!bfish Wed Aug 12 16:52:14 EDT 1992
Article 6554 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!bfish
>From: bfish@sequent.com (Brett Fishburne)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining Intelligence
Summary: Off the track
Message-ID: <1992Aug3.223619.29770@sequent.com>
Date: 3 Aug 92 22:36:19 GMT
References: <2ZmcoB1w164w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu> <1992Jul23.151338.28804@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992Jul27.035104.22491@dirac.physics.sunysb.edu>
Sender: bfish@sequent.com
Followup-To: comp.ai.philosophy
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Lines: 122
Nntp-Posting-Host: sequent.sequent.com

Let me note before I start, that I have read the follow-ups to this
article, but I felt that I had something to add to the information
presented herein:

In article <1992Jul27.035104.22491@dirac.physics.sunysb.edu> charles@dirac.physics.sunysb.edu (Charles Ofria) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.151338.28804@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>>In article <2ZmcoB1w164w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu> justin.bbs@cybernet.cse.fau.edu writes:
>>>        I. Intelligence requires a memory storage/retrieval system.
>>
>>  Certainly humans are capable of learning, and learning implies some
>>kind of memory.  But I deny that it is a "storage/retrieval" system.
>>Indeed it is my opinion that the often held belief that we have a
>>storage/retrieval system is a major stumbling block in understanding
>>human cognition.
>
>  Anyay,
>I have to say that I think that intelligence has a definate need for a
>storage/retrieval system.  They way that you (Neil) are talking about
>it seems more like a definate dump of informating into memory and
>similarly a retrieval of it in chunks.  If it is looked at on a smaller
>scale, I don't see how intelligence can be accomplished without a
>memory.  

I would like to put forth that you don't see how intelligence can be USED
without a memory.  Are you willing to argue that it doesn't exist?  I am
familiar with the practicality arguments put forth on the net to date and 
I stand at the other end of the spectrum.  Intelligence should not be defined
in terms of whether or not it is considered "useful", "practical", or
"worthy".  We certainly don't find definitions of other general abstractions
(such as "knowledge" or "philosophy") similarly constrained.  I would like to
put forth that intelligence is an ability!  As a result, talking about the
nature of memory is unnecessary.

>>>        II. Intelligence is about problem-solving.
>>
>>  Intelligence is all about survival.  
>
>This can be looked at in a number of ways.  I personally prefer the idea
>that intelligence is about problem solving where survival is just another
>one of those problems to be solved.
>

Once again, I argue that this is how intelligence is USED or not USED.  A
perfectly intelligent act may well be NOT to solve a problem.  Of course,
it is easy to argue that NOT solving is actually solving -- so my example
falls apart at the extreme.  My point is that something which is highly
intelligent may or may not solve problems.  I am willing to concede that
it is highly unlikely that a species which does not solve problems as a
part of its history will EVOLVE intelligence, but I am not talking about the
process of acquiring intelligence!

>>>        III. Intelligence requires drives.
>>
>>  Of course, there is the genetically implanged drive for survival.
>>But if you intended some conscious drive, I must strongly disagree.
>>That has it backwards.  
>
>I agree that intelligence is helped by drives, but they are not required.
>

Drives (of any sort) may cause intelligence to be excercised, but cerainly
no one is willing to argue that because I have a drive, I am
intelligent.  While someone may be willing to argue that without a drive I
cannot be intelligent, I can think of no reasonable argument along this line.
In any case, I hold that drives do not generate an ability.

>>>        IV. Intelligence requires creativity.
>>
>>  Again, I must disagree.  Once again, creativity is an effect of
>>intelligence, but I very much doubt that it is a prerequisite.  Indeed,
>>it is much more likely that intelligence is a prerequisite for creativity.
>
>This is a tricky question.  I think that it all depends on how you are
>defining intelligence (which is exactly what we are trying to do.)  It
>dosn't seem to me like creativity is required for intelligence.  An
>intelligence might simply be able to learn, a figure things out, but
>never come up with anything new of there own.  If they were to have this
>creativity, I'm sure that it would improve their intelligence greatly.

Notice that creativity is an implied USE of intelligence in both responses?
This is consistent with my position that intelligence is an ability.

>>>        V. Intelligence is a function of speed.  It's likely we all agree 
>>>on this point.
>>
>>  Can't agree here either.  Speed certainly has utility.  But I don't
>>believe it is central.  
>
>I have to agree with Neil here.  
>

Once again, both responses imply that the only relationship between speed
and intelligence is how it is USED.  I agree with both responses, in that
speed has little or nothing to do with intelligence.

>>>        VI. Certain types of intelligence require communication.
>>
>>  Finally, something I can agree with - sort of.
>
>Gee, I don't agree with either of you here.  I don't see why it would be
>necessary to have any form of comunication to have intelligence.  Perhaps
>you wouldn't be able to express your thoughts and ideas to others, but
>that dosn't mean that they don't exist.
>

I agree with Charles (as should be obvious by now).  For me to know that
you are intelligent may/does require communication, but for you to be
intelligent, you do not need to communicate EXTERNALLY.  Internal 
communications are something else entirely.  I am willing to buy that some
form of internal communications are necessary.  I would like to point out,
however, that just because one can communicate internally, is no indication
that communicating externally is posible or desired.

As for the argument that deprivation chambers cause abnormal development --
I agree!  Of course they do, subjects are experiencing ABNORMAL conditions.
Is it really reasonable to ask that someone devlop in a deprivation chamber
and develop in the same manner as someone outside the chamber?  I think not.


-- Brett

bfish@sequent.com


