From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Wed Aug 12 16:52:34 EDT 1992
Article 6575 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Communication and Intelligence
Message-ID: <1992Aug6.202409.4172@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: 6 Aug 92 20:24:09 GMT
References: <1992Aug4.152933.2523@sequent.com> <826@tdat.teradata.COM> <1992Aug6.183619.8193@sequent.com>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Lines: 54

In article <1992Aug6.183619.8193@sequent.com> bfish@sequent.com (Brett Fishburne) writes:
>In an effort to forward this discussion, I am going to make an effort to
>analyze the position that intelligence is dependent on communication.  I am
>doing this on the fly and would invite any responses which uphold or destroy
>portions or all of the argument presented below.

  I'm not trying to pour cold water on this, and I will certainly be
interested in any posted responses.  But I think the real problem here
is that there is no general agreement on what constitutes intelligence.

>DEFINITION:  Communication is understood to mean interaction with the
>environment as distinct from the individual.

  You give a definition of communication, for example, but no definition
of intelligence.  It is intelligence which people find it hard to define.
We can all agree that Einstein was above average intelligence.  We can
all agree that a chimpanzee is more intelligent than a horse, and a
horse is more intelligent than a frog.  But there is still little
agreement on exactly what it is we are talking about.  [Actually, here
is a definition.  Intelligence is pornography.  After all they both are
described by "I don't know how to define it, but I can recognize it when
I see it :-)  ]

  For example, a common definition of intelligence in psychology books
perhaps 30 years ago was "intelligence is that property which is measured
by intelligence tests".  With such a definition (which has admittedly
been largely discarded today) it is obvious that communication is an
essential component of intelligence.  My personal, and admittedly
non-standard definition is "the ability to interact flexibly and adaptively
with the environment" and this too clearly requires communication.  But
others have views as to what constitutes intelligence which are quite
different, and some of those probably permit intelligence without
communication (other than inner communication of thought, introspection,
etc).

>ANALYSIS:  There are children who are born without the capability to
>experience certain forms of communication (e.g. deaf).

  We have a remarkable ability to adapt to the loss of some ability such
as hearing.  I see this adaptability as an important indicator of
intelligence, which perhaps partly explains my personal definition
(above).

>                                                        Despite that, these
>children appear to develop at the same rate as their peers.

  It is my understanding that this is not strictly true.  I do not have
any references, but I gather that normal development requires some sort
of compensatory communication, and if this is delayed too long there
are clear signs of abnormal mental development.

>ANALYSIS:  If increasing levels of communication increases intelligence,

  I don't think anybody claims that.


