From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!caen!umeecs!dip.eecs.umich.edu!marky Mon Aug 24 15:40:43 EDT 1992
Article 6609 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!caen!umeecs!dip.eecs.umich.edu!marky
>From: marky@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: Defining intelligence
Message-ID: <1992Aug13.044325.16707@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
Sender: news@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Mr. News)
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
References: <BILL.92Aug9124642@ca3.nsma.arizona.edu> <1992Aug11.152606.25085@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <BILL.92Aug11130136@ca3.nsma.arizona.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 04:43:25 GMT
Lines: 39

%r bill@nsma.arizona.edu (Bill Skaggs)
>marky@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>
>   >   > That is, [something is more intelligent than me if] it does
>   >   > things the way I would if I'd had more time to think about
>   >   > them, or that I would do given its example. 
>
>How about the following:  Adolph Hitler was pretty intelligent, I
>think, maybe more intelligent than me, but I hope that I would never
>do things the way he did, regardless of how much time I had to think
>about them.  (If Hitler seems like a dubious example, substitute
>Satan.)
>
This is a good point.  My defence is that it says "does things the 
way I would", which -- to me at least -- indicates that we are only
talking about the things that we both do.  The things that you or I
would not do are thus not relevent to how intelligent we judge the
other to be (unless of course we're talking about things we wouldn't
do because they're abysmally stupid -- things like the Three Stooges
would do).

I want to say again that I am not offering the above as a definition
of intelligence, but only as a rule of thumb that people use to tell
whether someone else is intelligent.  Like any rule of thumb, there
are caveats all over the place.  The rule only applies to things
that people believe are related to intelligence (putting on socks and
shoes is not related -- Archie Bunker notwithstanding).  The rule is
inapplicable if one or the other of you is incapable of doing something
the way the other did.  Et cetera, et cetera.

>Even better, consider Isaac Newton, who was, no question, far more
>intelligent than me, yet devoted a major part of his life to what I
>think of as theological nonsense.
>
Well that was pretty stupid of him, wasn't it.... :-)

>	-- Bill

...mark young


