What is intelligence?

[Uncle Martin]

I'm sure most will agree that even a supercomputer is not as intelligent as a dog. But what exactly is intelligence? More importantly,....how do we measure it? Are bacteria, plants or even humans really intelligent? Why are computers NOT intelligent? Or are they? IQ tests are usually biased in some way, but do offer some level of accuracy. I'm looking for some new, outside the envelope thoughts on this. I'd like to keep this as much away from AI as possible, except for its use as a comparison to biological intelligence. Tormod, this one is for you, lets hear some theories.

[Tim_Lou]

intelligence = capibility to survive in this world...

???

[Tormod]

I was expecting this...okay, I need to get my brain out of the "post vacation blues" mode before I start in this one, Unc.

 

T

[Freethinker]

At least from the aspect of testing, we seem to associate Intellegence" with pattern recognition. IQ tests seem to often bases questions on "this is to that as this is to..." or "What pattern comes next" or being able to identify a pattern in a presentation that allows one to construct a math formula or apply an existing one, or to recognize a word or phrase as it fits into the patter of the rest of the question.

 

Perhaps the same is used in evaluation on a personal level. Those we typically associate with being intellegent as those that can identify and respond to things quickly and correctly. They "get it". WHich seems to be the ability to "connect" or again recognize patterns.

 

In fact AI is usually based on pattern recognition. "Expert Systems", one branch of AI is specifically based on it.

[Yvonne]

What is intelligence and what does it imply? We had an accident at one of our "chicken killer factories" and some chickens were skinned and boiled alive. The animal rights people were very upset (rightly so, I think). However, they said that this was extremly bad BECAUSE chickens are supposed to be very intelligent?

 

Does anybody agree? Should we value the life and emotion of animales according to how intelligent they are? I think not.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Yvonne

What is intelligence and what does it imply? We had an accident at one of our "chicken killer factories" and some chickens were skinned and boiled alive. The animal rights people were very upset (rightly so, I think). However, they said that this was extremly bad BECAUSE chickens are supposed to be very intelligent?

Lobsters are intentionally handled that way all the time. Though I have never seen a cage with a lobster playing piano.

 

Intersting that you use the term "chicken killer factories" . Have you seen ...?

 

Meet your Meat

 

"More than 25 billion animals are killed for food every year in the United States. This video shows the lives and deaths of chickens, cows, and pigs and makes a poignant case for vegetarianism and humane legislation."

 

http://www.meetyourmeat.com/

Does anybody agree? Should we value the life and emotion of animales according to how intelligent they are? I think not.

Do you differentiate between food stock animals and dogs/ cats/ pets?

 

Is it more ethical to kill the chicken before skinning it, or to make sure it is raised in a "humane" manner before it is slaughtered? What difference if the entire concept is growth for slaughter to feed humans?

 

Native Americans (and other ethnic groups?) are known for a philosophy in which they respect and even "thank" things they kill and use.

 

It would seem that "respect" for our food sources would help assure the best end product. Thus such "altruism" would have it's own rewards.

 

But ultimately we either have to develop completely non-organic food sources or we have to balance the "value (of) the life" we are about to consume to that of our own.

[Yvonne]

No, I've never seen "Meet your meat", and I never want to. I'm not a vegetarian even though I don't eat much meat. I try to teach my daughters about what we're eating but I don't want to be go disgusting either. I don't differantiate between food stock animals and pets, there should be no need to.

 

It would feel so much better to know that the animals have had a nice life. I guess money is an enormous part in these monstrous handling and killings. Sometimes we are lucky enough to eat moose, and that is a good feeling. The moose have been wandering around in the woods until it's killed by a (hopefully) single bullet.

 

I read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair while in the States, it's not about the animals but the people, but it stopped me from eating sausages for a long, long time.

 

...

 

Occasionally a fish swim behind the fan in our aquarium, and get stuck and die. I never thought, maybe they are killing them selves? Hope not.

[lindagarrette]

There are numerous definitions of intelligence, none of them seem adequate. There is a differencee between a reaction and an intentional action that somehow sets intelligence apart from strictly animate. I don't think there are any intelligent machines, yet.

 

Humane treatment of all sentient life is another issue. Everything with a nervous system, even fish, have feelings. So it is cruel to cause them pain. That does not mean it is cruel to kill them.

[TeleMad]

Since this thread got off track a bit...

 

There is a religious poster at our work break room inviting people to come out and join the big game fellowship. The poster features a large picture of a hunter hunched over his kill, holding up the head of the dear to show how great of a kill it was. It just seems kind of ironic to me: "Come everyone, and show your thanks for God 's love by blowing the brains out of dear!"

 

As far as what intelligence is, I think FreeThinker did a good job. But I wonder if the concept of information can't be incorporated into what intelligence means. Since information can be quantitatively measured, defining intelligence in relatin to inforation might allow for a more quantitative (as opposed to comparative) means of measuring intelligence.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TeleMad

As far as what intelligence is, I think FreeThinker did a good job.

Just thought that could stand repeating! :-)

But I wonder if the concept of information can't be incorporated into what intelligence means. Since information can be quantitatively measured, defining intelligence in relatin to inforation might allow for a more quantitative (as opposed to comparative) means of measuring intelligence.

Storage of or processing of? Either can be "quantitatively measured". And "information" is a requirement of my pattern recognition concept. Stimulous needs to be compared to something. To the stored information database. Thus an IQ test would test both the speed of the comparison and the size of the database to draw inforamtion from.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: lindagarrette

There is a differencee between a reaction and an intentional action that somehow sets intelligence apart from strictly animate.

Can you give us an example of each?

Humane treatment of all sentient life is another issue. Everything with a nervous system, even fish, have feelings. So it is cruel to cause them pain. That does not mean it is cruel to kill them.

Sentient means self aware. You are asserting that "Everything with a nervous system" is sentient, is self aware.

 

As such killing any of them causes pain on many levels.

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: But I wonder if the concept of information can't be incorporated into what intelligence means. Since information can be quantitatively measured, defining intelligence in relatin to inforation might allow for a more quantitative (as opposed to comparative) means of measuring intelligence.

 

FreeThinker: Storage of or processing of?

 

Not storage of. A book stores information; DNA stores information; a hard drive stores information. But no one considers those things to be intelligent.

 

So if we can define intelligence in terms of information, then it must be based on some kind of utilization/processing of information.

 

FreeThinker: And "information" is a requirement of my pattern recognition concept. Stimulous needs to be compared to something. To the stored information database. Thus an IQ test would test both the speed of the comparison and the size of the database to draw inforamtion from.

 

But how does one quantify that information? How many bits of information are processed when realizing that a CPU is to a computer as a [brain] is to the human body?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TeleMad

FreeThinker: Storage of or processing of?

Not storage of. A book stores information; DNA stores information; a hard drive stores information. But no one considers those things to be intelligent.

With intellegence being a matter of pattern recognition, in order to "recognize" something , there ahs to be a database to draw from. Thus both storage and processing. Like I said before:

FreeThinker: And "information" is a requirement of my pattern recognition concept. Stimulous needs to be compared to something. To the stored information database. Thus an IQ test would test both the speed of the comparison and the size of the database to draw inforamtion from.

But how does one quantify that information? How many bits of information are processed when realizing that a CPU is to a computer as a [brain] is to the human body?

One of the big problems with comparing the human mind to computers of today is the processing schema. The human minds is a massive parrallel system. While current computers are typically single task. Even "multi-tasking" is actually multi-threading in which one process takes place per clock cycle, but multiple programs can be open at the same time. But each programs waits for it's turn at the processor.

 

The human mind is more of a distributed processing network. Almost down to single bit processors.

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: But how does one quantify that information? How many bits of information are processed when realizing that a CPU is to a computer as a [brain] is to the human body?

 

 

FreeThinker: One of the big problems with comparing the human mind to computers of today is the processing schema. The human minds is a massive parrallel system. While current computers are typically single task. Even "multi-tasking" is actually multi-threading in which one process takes place per clock cycle, but multiple programs can be open at the same time. But each programs waits for it's turn at the processor.

 

You sure seem to have a knack for (intentionally) grabbing hold of something I said and taking it to places it was never meant to go. You think you'll ever get tired of doing that?

 

 

PS: You aware that there are SINGLE computers that have MULTIPLE processors...aren't you?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TeleMad

You sure seem to have a knack for (intentionally) grabbing hold of something I said and taking it to places it was never meant to go. You think you'll ever get tired of doing that??

I am tired of doing it. What choice have you left me?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TeleMad

FreeThinker: One of the big problems with comparing the human mind to computers of today is the processing schema. The human minds is a massive parrallel system. While current computers are typically single task. Even "multi-tasking" is actually multi-threading in which one process takes place per clock cycle, but multiple programs can be open at the same time. But each programs waits for it's turn at the processor.

PS: You aware that there are SINGLE computers that have MULTIPLE processors...aren't you?

I used to sell massive parallels like the SGI's with 256 MIPS RISK processors or the IBM Power Visualizer with hundreds of RS6000's.

 

I also sold the only computer specifically designed for AI type/ Symbolic Processing. Symbolics. Ran native in LisP.

 

None of these can be designed to operate the way the brain does. The best we can hope for with current hardware is enough raw number cruching power to run a software simulation of a large enough neural network.

 

Now DNA computing. That might lead us down the right path.

[TeleMad]

Well, we're getting off topic, but....

 

We've got single computers with multiple processors, and individual processors in the set can be running completely different processes - simultaneously. These facts weaken your original 'counter' to my statement. Now you could get into some semantics about a single CPU vs. multiple processors, but all of that would be irrelevant. In fact, all of your 'counter' is irrelevant since it doesn't even apply to my original statement. Your 'counter' is kind of like this:

 

TeleMad: A submarine is to a jet, as a whale is to a [bird].

 

FreeThinker: Jets and birds are very different. A bird is made of cells while a jet isn't, and they fly at different speeds and by different mechanisms, and ....

 

In doing such as that, you completely miss the point of the analogy - actually, you miss the point that it IS JUST an analogy.

 

Simple point: ask people who know the first thing about computers to fill in the blank:

"A CPU is to a computer as a _____ is to the human body"

 

Better yet, FreeThinker, what do you think the correct answer is? And please support your answer if it is other than the most appropriate answer, BRAIN.