What is intelligence?

[Tim_Lou]

all i meant is that if we stop thinking, "intelligence" wouldnt even exist.

think about the language, the words, the meanings........

its all created by ourselves.

 

"As molten lava flows, it cools and hardens because it encounters a new situation. It has adapted from the extreme heat of it's earlier environment to the relative cool of the new environment. "

 

well, maybe my idea is a bit misleading...

a molten lava flows would not become hotter after if the environment is cold,

it "adapts" to the environment by its nature, there is no randomness... and no measurement on how "inteligent" it cooled... its just always the same case.

 

as a human, i might turn on a fan if its hot, somebody might take a shower, whatever..

there is a measurement on which one is "better" in a same situation...

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tim_Lou

all i meant is that if we stop thinking, "intelligence" wouldnt even exist.

Depends on what you mean by "we".

 

There is little doubt that other species display what "we" (homo sapien sapien) would classify as Intelligence. Thus if by "we" you mean the homo sapien sapiens, intellegence would still exist in other species.

 

Further, if we made a "conscious" decision to stop thinking, that would not END intellegence. Perhaps just the application of it,.

 

And in connection with the other thread you started, can we "decide" to stop thinking?

a molten lava flows would not become hotter after if the environment is cold,

 

it "adapts" to the environment by its nature, there is no randomness... and no measurement on how "inteligent" it cooled... its just always the same case.

It could be demonstrated that the process/ path/ action each molecule of lava followed was the optimum for itself.

as a human, i might turn on a fan if its hot, somebody might take a shower, whatever..

 

there is a measurement on which one is "better" in a same situation...

Just as with each molecule of lava. Each human would "decide" which process/ path/ action would best resolve the situation.

 

No one would ever show utter randomness in their specific response. No one has ever been shown to have an idea that they did not have some previous exposure to. A truly random thought. I am not saying that people have not made unique combinations based on varied individual experience.

[Tim_Lou]

the randomness of thinking processes do not invovle with certain laws. but the nature does.

 

laws limit possibilities in nature (a "true" law).

where do these laws come from? humans!

from the intelligence of humans!

it wouldnt seem like itelligence if we dont even exist! molten lava is "intelligent" is simply a thought!

 

no law, at this point, has limited the thinking processes of human beings.

 

i can think about math, art, religion, party, food... all sort of things without limitation... (there is no limit that i can ONLY think about a certain subject in a certain time.)

 

you cannot say that if the weather is hot, i must turn on the fan....

i can even turn on the heat if i want to....

 

although we do think in a certain path, but this path changed vapidly....

after this post, i might start to think in a totally different way.... but molten lava doesnt.

[Tim_Lou]

and yes, freethinker, we cannot stop thinking...

 

but intelligent is simply a rational idea of us.

without us, "intelligent" would not be defined.

 

maybe what you mean is the "true" intelligence (dont know what to call it), if so, we wouldnt even be able to define it, and we wouldnt even know if it really exists.

 

idea such as the "time", "length", "mass"..... all are defined by operations, and observations to us.

time- atomic clock, length- comparison to a ruler......etc.

 

maybe a better way to define intelligence is by operation. select an object (most likely human), and say that it is intelligence, and compare all other things to this object and "measure" the relative "intelligence"....

 

 

(i apologize for my terribleness in verbals and grammars, i dont know if i spell everything right..... some of them may not make sense)

[thats the reason y that almost every single post i made, i would at least edit it once] :-

[TINNY]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

A plant shows intellegence that is limited by external factors. This is based on a plant's ability to respond to it's environment.

 

Can't the same be said about EVERYTHING?

 

water wears dirt away and a rock is loosened enough to roll downhill. It's path is limited by external factors, making decisions at each step as to speed/ direction....

 

So a rock has intellegence?

I have no problems accepting that rocks have intelligence. the exception that everything is limited by external factors is humans. In psychology, it is widely accepted that we can react independently, not solely by external influence. We can make a choice of our own. It's even in Steven Covey's 7 habits of highly effective people. So there's two types of intelligence (the ability to perceive and act appropriately). Or maybe I should say that everything has consciousness, but humans have intelligent consciousness.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tim_Lou

the randomness of thinking processes do not invovle with certain laws. but the nature does.

I'm not sure of what you want to say here.

laws limit possibilities in nature (a "true" law).

Interesting way to put it, but I suppose.

where do these laws come from? humans!

 

from the intelligence of humans!

You just claimed that humans ESTABLISHED the Laws of Physics (nature), not just discovered them. THis would mean that we could violate them just by wanting a different set. Was this done by mutual agreement? A vote? Gravity would accelerate at a certain speed only because that is what we wanted?

it wouldnt seem like itelligence if we dont even exist!

Porposes are intelligent creatures. Would they stop being intelligent if we didn't exist? Dogs, cats, ... show certain levels of intelligence. That depends on our existence?

 

Were there no intelligent creatures before we came along?

molten lava is "intelligent" is simply a thought!

It fits the definition you gave.

i can think about math, art, religion, party, food... all sort of things without limitation... (there is no limit that i can ONLY think about a certain subject in a certain time.)

But you can not think about a food that you have no knowledge of. Yes you could take any number of things you know about already and think of them in a food context. But you can not have a thought about a food that you no NOTHING about.

 

Let's say you have never heard of czarnina. Now at least you have a word to think about. You did not even have that before. If you had nver been exposed to it at any point in your life, you would not even have the word to think about. It's a type of soup. See, now you ahve more to think about. But if you had not ever been exposed to it before, you would not be able to think soup or even the word. It is made of duck blood. Now you have lots to think about. None of which would even be possible before.

you cannot say that if the weather is hot, i must turn on the fan....

 

i can even turn on the heat if i want to....

And the lava could keep flowing if that best served it's purpose. If it got hot enough you would die no matter what you personally decided.

although we do think in a certain path, but this path changed vapidly....

 

after this post, i might start to think in a totally different way.... but molten lava doesnt.

Are you talking longevity? The lava is going to be following it's process/ path much longer than you could even begin to think about.

 

You might have more variety to choose from, but others have far fewer choices for any number of reasons.

[Tim_Lou]

"You just claimed that humans ESTABLISHED the Laws of Physics (nature), not just discovered them. THis would mean that we could violate them just by wanting a different set. Was this done by mutual agreement? A vote? Gravity would accelerate at a certain speed only because that is what we wanted?

"

 

yes, humans established the laws of physics that FITS the observations we saw.

dont tell me that somewhere in the world, e=mc^2 is written on a rock naturally.

 

"Porposes are intelligent creatures. Would they stop being intelligent if we didn't exist? Dogs, cats, ... show certain levels of intelligence. That depends on our existence?

Were there no intelligent creatures before we came along? "

 

let me back up a little bit, the "idea" of intelligence is established by humans.

 

knowledge is a big big requirement of intelligence, lava rock doesnt obtain knowledge.

(forgot to put it on there before)

 

after the birth of a baby, the baby learns certain things, such as not to touch fire, not to mess up with a needle, feel good about eating favorite food.....

 

but a rock stays the same, it has no consiousness, no knowledge obtained, no new reactions after trials and errors...

 

 

 

my new opinion of defining intelligence is based on operation, take that of human and define it as a intelligent being, and comparing it to others to see if they r intelligent...

[Veritas]

David Wechsler defined intelligence as the global capacity to act purposefully, think rationally, and to deal effectively with the environment.

[Veritas]

my new opinion of defining intelligence is based on operation, take that of human and define it as a intelligent being, and comparing it to others to see if they r intelligent...

 

Hypothetically, if there were life elsewhere in the universe, and this race was tens of times more intelligent than us compared to us, would they think of us like we think of dogs? Not very self aware?

[Tim_Lou]

probabaly yes....

but we might not even notice..... im not sure if dogs think we are way smarter than them.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tim_Lou

yes, humans established the laws of physics that FITS the observations we saw.

 

dont tell me that somewhere in the world, e=mc^2 is written on a rock naturally.

You miss the point Tim. I am not saying that humans have not "established a knowledge base of information" regarding nature/ physics. But we did not INVENT, first develop, create them. We just, as you say, Observed them. e=mc^2 does not need to be written down, or even turned into an equation, for us to be surrounded by it. WE, humans, don't even need to exist for it to be in control.

let me back up a little bit, the "idea" of intelligence is established by humans.

OK, if we are only talking about who gave which names to which things then I agree.

 

But if you are trying to say that humans have some metaphysical power to bestow intelligence, even on ourselves, there I need some proof.

knowledge is a big big requirement of intelligence, lava rock doesnt obtain knowledge... but a rock stays the same, it has no consiousness, no knowledge obtained,

Very good. This is exactly what I am trying to get at. We need to be more specific on where we draw the line. And we have to have valid supportable reasons to draw it there.

 

You are showing that although some original things we thought would differentiate intelligent mass from non-intelligent mass where actually shared to some extent. But we can come up with other ways of drawing the line.

 

How would you specify "Knowledge"? How would you test for it?

 

A rock, just lying there, would accumulate layers of deposited molecules which can be examined to descibe the environment it existed in. That rock can "communicate it's history to something that is capable of understanding it. How does this database of information differ from "intellegent knowledge"?

after the birth of a baby, the baby learns certain things, such as not to touch fire, not to mess up with a needle,

Sounds like there's a story in there! A painful experience?

no new reactions after trials and errors...

Imagine a rock in a stream. The rock's best chance for continued existence is to get pushed towards the outer edge where there is less current. In order to have the best chance to do this, the rock needs to be smooth on all sides so it does not catch on md, sticks, other jagged rocks, ... If it has a sharp edge and that gets broken off during movement, river current, it has learned a way to do it's job better, improved it's chance of continued existence.

 

In fact it could cause the rock to break loose, if that jagged edge was caught on something, and roll towards it's goal which might also cause abrasion and smooth out other parts. Thus it has succesfully repeated a process from which it receives benefit.

 

Other than some discusion of self awareness, the process can be described same as some things we do.

 

How do we test for "intellegent knowledge"?

my new opinion...

Nice going! Glad to see that you can admit to changing your opinion on things. It shows Freethinking!

... of defining intelligence is based on operation, take that of human and define it as a intelligent being, and comparing it to others to see if they r intelligent...

OK, let's look at some examples and see how they work. Which would you suggest first?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Veritas

David Wechsler defined intelligence as the global capacity

I don't understand why he assumes some "global" nature to it. Smacks of a priori thinking. What set does he intend to include in "global"? How wide, how inclusive is the set?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Veritas

Hypothetically, if there were life elsewhere in the universe, and this race was tens of times more intelligent than us compared to us, would they think of us like we think of dogs? Not very self aware?

Ah, so is Intelligence relative? Can the line be moved strictly by outside reference? From OUR POV, we are at the top of the heap and the line that seperates us from the non-intelligent is down there somewhere. But WE as the same point being judged, drop below the acceptability line if measured by some advanced aliens?

 

Or does Intelligence have some objective, even absolute, rubric?

[Tim_Lou]

well, from my new definition of intelligence, the degrees of "intelligence" is far below that of human, as a rock is placed in a stream, the only thing it does is to change its shape.

 

the lev of "intelligence" would be extremely low that it is nearly 0....

and once something's "intelligence" is below a certain level, we would simply consider it as non-intelligent...

 

compare that to a dog, a cat........ they certain dont know how to make air-planes, how to cooperate to other individuals to do certain jobs.......

so, there is a lower degree of "intelligence"....

 

 

(operations always work!)

[Tim_Lou]

hmm, after some thinkings, i figure out that almost everything is defined by operations.........

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tim_Lou

and once something's "intelligence" is below a certain level, we would simply consider it as non-intelligent...

So it is not so much WHAT something does, as it is WHY that determines Intellegence?

compare that to a dog, a cat........ they certain dont know how to make air-planes, how to cooperate to other individuals to do certain jobs.......

In fact dogs are pack animals. They do a lot of social activities in packs. They establish leaders and various members know their jobs.

so, there is a lower degree of "intelligence"....

But intelligence still.

[Freethinker]

Do you have your homework finished?

 

You should be working n that! :-)