From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!comp.vuw.ac.nz!waikato.ac.nz!aukuni.ac.nz!kcbbs!kc Wed Aug 12 16:52:29 EDT 1992
Article 6568 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!comp.vuw.ac.nz!waikato.ac.nz!aukuni.ac.nz!kcbbs!kc
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining Intelligence  
Message-ID: <54891.2189220454@kcbbs.gen.nz>
>From: Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas)
Date: 6 Aug 92 15:14:51 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand
Lines: 143

  
PLS NOTE that my following remarks are about the grammar of INTELLECT  
in language. Similes are used to clarify the grammar of 'intellect' in  
language.  
  
> 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 define
> 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 t
> put forth that intelligence is an ability!  As a result, talking about the  
> nature of memory is unnecessary.  
  
This is because "intellect" (mark my word - not intelligence) is like some   
giant collection of computer systems that you and I have an access to use...  
.(pls take this comparison as a grammatical simile).  
  
>   
> 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!  
  
One can not HAVE or EVOLVE or ACQUIRE INTELLECT.  
One can USE or NOT USE intellect. And perhaps one may have access to   
intellect or not..so if we call some one "highly intelligent" this means  
s/he is using intellect extensively...(Grammatical remark about the use  
of 'intellect' in language, here 'can' reflects grammatical rules governing  
the use of 'intellect' in language, it is not physical impossibility that  
one _can not_ have/evolve/acquire intellect, but a grammatical exclusion)  
  
>   
> >>>        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.  
  
Here "the drive" means a means of access to intellect...(Grammatical remark)  
  
>   
> >>>        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.  
  
One cannot mis-use intellect...(This is a grammatical remark about the  
use of 'intellect' in language)  
  
>   
> >>>        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.  
  
INTELLECT is like a giant collection of computer systems consisting knowledge 
and databases that one has an access to utilize...one can access intellect via
language. Communications is achieved via language. (This is a grammatical  
remark about 'intellect' and 'language').  
  
>   
> >>>        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.  
  
For me to access intellect and use it, one need to be in good command of   
language. Like to utilize a *nix environment you should be in good command  
of *nix operating system. (Grammatical remark about 'intellect' and 'language'
  
> -- Brett  
>   
> bfish@sequent.com  
>   


