From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!bfish Wed Aug 12 16:52:21 EDT 1992
Article 6558 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!bfish
>From: bfish@sequent.com (Brett Fishburne)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Communication and Intelligence
Message-ID: <1992Aug4.152933.2523@sequent.com>
Date: 4 Aug 92 15:29:33 GMT
References: <1992Jul31.061939.16766@dirac.physics.sunysb.edu> <1992Jul31.233457.16966@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
Sender: bfish@sequent.com
Followup-To: comp.ai.philosophy
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Lines: 98
Nntp-Posting-Host: sequent.sequent.com

In article <1992Jul31.233457.16966@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> abreu@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Abreu) writes:
>In <1992Jul31.061939.16766@dirac.physics.sunysb.edu> 
>charles@dirac.physics.sunysb.edu (Charles Ofria) writes:
> [...]
> > Although you can clip all the communication abilities from
> > a person and still have them be intelligent, all that we can really show
> > to be intelligent must be done through some form of communication.
> [...]
> > Therefore even though external communication is not truly
> > needed per say, I think that it is important enough to include in a
> > definition.
>
>External communication isn't important; it is ESSENTIAL. Internal
>communication, per se, has no reason of being because there's
>nothing to trigger it.

I don't follow your reasoning.  Are you arguing that without external
stimuli, intelligence cannot develop?  Cannot exist?  

Clearly the case of an autistic child is one where communication does not
normally exist, yet, as mentioned in other posts, once communication is
established, intelligence is found to exist.  Are you willing to take the
position that the intelligence suddenly developed the instant that
communication was established?  I am willing to argue that communication
is impossible without intelligence (not vice-versa).  If you care to
dispute this position, then describe a scenario where you carry on some
form of communication with something that everyone is willing to concede
is _not_ intelligent (say a hunk of granite or piece of ice).

>There's not one element of intelligent behaviour I can think of, that
>does not depend on some sort of external communication. All the
>knowledge we possess is acquired through it. All our physical abilities
>are acquired and improved through it. All our mental abilities are
>acquired through it.
>
>In fact, I'd go as far as saying that external communication shapes
>our intelligence. Having come this far, you can already guess that
>by communication I mean the interaction with the surrounding environ-
>ment, in all its nuances. I hope that's the definition you're using
>in your message.

It seems that you are arguing that without external stimuli intelligence
is impossible.  I make this distinction because communication implies a
two-way exchange.  In light of this, I would like to address your contention
that "interaction with the environment" is essential to a definition of
intelligence.

If interaction with the environment is a necessary condition for intelligence,
then removing someone from the environment (say in a deprivation chamber) would
also remove intelligence.  This, however, has not been the case in any 
experiment I have ever heard or seen.  The point is moot, you say?  You feel
that your position is still solid because in all those experiments the
subject was exposed to the environment at _some_ point?  OK, I'm willing to
concede that there may be a connection, but I don't see evidence of a 
_causal_ connection.  It is not clear to me that external stimuli is 
_necessary_ to have intelligence.  As a result, I feel that it has no place
in the definition.

>Consequently, and regarding the point about clipping someone's
>communication abilities, I suppose it depends on how early in life that
>is done, and for how long a period do you expect to still find
>intelligence. A case in point is the mental degradation suffered by
>prisoners in solitary (and even that one is not total). If the
>clipping happened at birth then what? Having no input, the person would
>beintelligent about what?
   ^^^^^^^^^^^

Don't you mean, what *knowledge* would the person have?  I am also willing
to argue that insanity has little or no bearing on intelligence.  It is for
that very reason that some prisoners are referred to as "brilliantly insane"
without danger of an oxymoron.  In fact, what we consider insanity may be a
good area to evaluate intelligence outside the arena of "environmental
influence".  People who are considered insane perceive themselves to live
in an environment which is at odds with the environment which is physically
around them.  Despite this, even in the most extreme cases, there is 
evidence of intelligence in these people.  This argument alone seems to
iradicate the proposition that "access to the environment" is even a
_sufficient_ requirement for intelligence.

>Could we agree that
>
> a) External Communication - is defined as interaction with the
>    surrounding environment, and elements in it, in all its shapes.
>    Both input and output.

YES!

> b) External Communication is an essential requirement for intelligence.

NO!!!

> c) External Communication shapes intelligence.

Absolutely not!  I would argue, however, that external communication does
shape knowledge.

-- Brett
bfish@seqeunt.com


