Thread: What is Intelligence?

I don't believe the two are married, neither in common use of the terms nor in actual definition. I agree intelligence is something observed through action and cannot be described as it is, but this also means that there's no solid line separating intelligent from non-intelligent, nor conscious from non-conscious. If you want to make a consciousness thread, be my guest.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Because that definition encompasses things which are not considered intelligence.

To be crass, what the f**k are you talking about.

Intelligence is the individual's capacity to process information in any given situation and deduce logical explanations and/or a response to said situation.

that is intelligence.. what "things" do you think I am talking about when I say individuals. Every living organism that has the capacity to process information in any given situation and deduce logical explanations and/or a response to said situation is by the very definition an "intelligent" composition of matter, matter that must consist of hydro carbons.

how god damn specific do i need to be lol

humans defining intelligence! ha! going on our track record we are asking the wrong species. : )

is asking a self destructive creature what intelligence is like asking a priest to describe the intensity of making love? with an adult.

"behind every cynic is a disappointed idealist"

ok, what about... the ability to react to your environment?

intelligence is the ability to do cognition and act (choose) upon it appropriately based on previous cognitions (learning)

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

To be crass, what the f**k are you talking about.

Intelligence is the individual's capacity to process information in any given situation and deduce logical explanations and/or a response to said situation.

that is intelligence.. what "things" do you think I am talking about when I say individuals. Every living organism that has the capacity to process information in any given situation and deduce logical explanations and/or a response to said situation is by the very definition an "intelligent" composition of matter, matter that must consist of hydro carbons.

how god damn specific do i need to be lol

Originally Posted by shafri

intelligence is the ability to do cognition and act (choose) upon it appropriately based on previous cognitions (learning)

So single celled organisms and computers, to some degree, are therefore intelligent.

So single celled organisms and computers, to some degree, are therefore intelligent.

yes to some degree and within their own domain. man made "info processing" devices such as computer, roomba cleaner, robot toy, if programmed correctly with intelligence, will be called "artificial intelligence", artificial means = man made. naturally born/emerging organisms, if they can act appropriately using their sensories (implicitly means "information processing"), will be called intelligent mostly for survival purposes. but "human intelligence" is something different, human can be intelligent and can be a fool at the same time. crazy people walking stray on the street is not intelligent since he cannot act something that can benefit himself, he can kill himself or do nasty things. human got extra intelligence (not sure about other organisms) that is called meta-cognitive (or cognition) which is the ability to judge himself, or question their reality or God existence which in turn capable of inventing a new thing or concept, and even deviates from the norm.

So you would define human intelligence as awareness of yourself?

recognizing that fact is one part in our inteligence ability. who knows the exact mechanism? esp in metacognitive part.

"http" "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacognition"
"http" "gse.buffalo.edu/fas/shuell/cep564/metacog.htm"
"http" "education.calumet.purdue.edu/vockell/edPsybook/Edpsy7/edpsy7_meta.htm"

ps: sorry i cannot make the proper link since i'm a new member. so pls use your "intelligence" to follow the links if you care

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

So you would define human intelligence as awareness of yourself?

Our consciousness, or philosophically speaking, our second level desire (primary motives), is not intelligence. It is essentially the reason why we think we have, or possible do have, free will. Arguable, without consciousness and conscious choices external from the instincts of our body, free will cannot exist.

I don't really think you're concerned with exactly what intelligence is, more so that you are curious about the idea or existence of artificial consciousness and consciousness in general, which I guess will exist someday (AIC). From what I have studied, human consciousness seems to just be deeply complex algorithms that guide our decision making process, at its most empirical form. Algorithms that are capable of building on themselves and constantly modulating to stimuli.

Then again, in my concept of human consciousness, whether or not an algorithm can be sophisticated enough to establish "freedom" is the next question. I think the answer to that question is no because in traditional programming the best I would be able to think of would purely be an illusion of freedom: i.e simultaneous probabilistic framework.

Another theory I have postulated is that if we could have 2 layers of algorithms running simultaneously we could probably simulate a "conscious" being. The first level represents our instinct, our desires, and other immediate wills of that arise in a typical human being. The second level would be the rational level framework of what is ultimately desired in a day. Arguable, there could even be third level called "consciousness", or just what I like to think which is the illusion of consciousness created by the overlap of what we may call layers 1 and 2. If I had to create that third level, consciousness, I would essentially try to emulate free will through radically ethical nihilism. So what you have is layer 1 - animal, layer 2 - rationality and objective ethical/moral code to be followed, layer 3 - constant doubting and testing of layers 1 and 2 to justify and predetermine way of life. In a way, this model is how the typical human lives, as far as i am concerned.

Truly interesting stuff. I don't claim to have any idea about what I am talking about, just to put that out there. This is just fairly poorly substantiated theory derived from my programming, philosophy, and math background.

I'll admit on consciousness I have a preconception that the entire universe is conscious. It makes more sense to think it's all conscious and that intelligence is derived from evolution of consciousness, not the other way around. But it's a little difficult to prove this idea. It just seems more likely.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I'll admit on consciousness I have a preconception that the entire universe is conscious. It makes more sense to think it's all conscious and that intelligence is derived from evolution of consciousness, not the other way around. But it's a little difficult to prove this idea. It just seems more likely.

Sure, when you look at the macro level scheme of things, its easy to say a chimp may have a consciousness or at least a low level of it. But how can we say that a electron is conscious, for we can dictate many of its actions from probabilistic theory and electromagnetism.

Saying the entire universe is consciousness is saying all matter is consciousness, to one degree or another. That is just impossible according to our definition of consciousness. That means that cup of coffee next to me has consciousness.

Intelligence comes before consciousness, not consciousness before intelligence, if there was any sequence to the two ideas. .....

Intelligence is very primitive, very simple. It is identifying patterns, processing what is happening and establishing logical interpretations of said events and how handle them. Consciousness, in respect to intelligence, is the decision "I" make after reasoning. In a way we are slaves to reason , which i can't say is a bad thing, I hate to be a slave to illogical impulses.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I'll admit on consciousness I have a preconception that the entire universe is conscious. It makes more sense to think it's all conscious and that intelligence is derived from evolution of consciousness, not the other way around. But it's a little difficult to prove this idea. It just seems more likely.

Sure, when you look at the macro level scheme of things, its easy to say a chimp may have a consciousness or at least a low level of it. But how can we say that a electron is conscious, for we can dictate many of its actions from probabilistic theory and electromagnetism.

Saying the entire universe is consciousness is saying all matter is consciousness, to one degree or another. That is just impossible according to our definition of consciousness. That means that cup of coffee next to me has consciousness.

Intelligence comes before consciousness, not consciousness before intelligence, if there was any sequence to the two ideas. .....

Intelligence is very primitive, very simple. It is identifying patterns, processing what is happening and establishing logical interpretations of said events and how handle them. Consciousness, in respect to intelligence, is the decision "I" make after reasoning. In a way we are slaves to reason , which i can't say is a bad thing, I hate to be a slave to illogical impulses.

Not really sure where I am going with this, but basically it is our disagreement between two very old modules of philosophy.

When we process stimuli, how do systematically evaluate a response. Does it go Instinct - Reason - Consciousness or Instinct - Consciousness - Reason.

I tend to think the first module.

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

Intelligence in standard English context refers to the individual's capacity to process information in any situation and deduce logical explanations and/or a response to said situation.

I don't see any motive for stretching a definition of a word any farther than I just did, as people have done before me. This thread asked a simple language question, and It has been answered.

Then why it is so widely spread, researched and argued topic in psychology?

because it is not understood fully. stating the meaning in a simple term is... simple. but to explain the detailed process is... not simple.

http://www.dreamviews.com/f36/iq-tests-121992/

Another thread that goes close with this. Read if interested. There is also my response about intelligence.

Spoiler for My wall of text:

Intelligence study is very odd field, since the time of Binet there has been a lot of talk about what should be calculated into it and what should not. There are many definitions.

Some of widely accepted definitions of intelligence :
- An intelligent person adapts into new situations and copes with its requirements.
- An intelligent person is able to use well his knowledge.
- An intelligent person can solve problems and act rationally.
- An intelligent person is able to benefit from teaching better than less intelligent.
- An intelligent perosn is able to think abstractly and use abstracts.

When thinking of the history of the intelligence study, it has often been mixed with giftedness. Intelligence is, however, a part of it. In the very first studies of intelligence the definitions were heavy with mathematical and linquistic skills, logical deduction and intellectual skill. In these past decades, however, intelligence has been seen as more relative and even more broader concept. In addition of cognitive abilities, it is seen that intelligence includes different kinds of practical abilities and social abilities. The definition of intelligence is affected by culture and life circumstances, in different cultures you'll need different kind of intelligent behavior. As intelligence surfaces itself in different shapes : actions, the quality of life, learning etc. , one definition cannot be applied into all situations, unless we stick with the intelligence is adaptation.

IQ tests are a way to test intelligence, but it is only a narrow edge of it. However, IQ tests serve their purpose as they are a way to gather information from people and compare it to each other. It is, by no means, always reliable or accurate. As Xei said, many factors that contribute to intelligence are heritable. The neurofysiological approach of intelligence is actually very interesting. With our modern equipment we are able to see the actual inheretance in the cells and study intelligence as learning process. We are able to actually see how neural networks and structures change when something new is learned. Thus we can see that "an intelligent" nervous system is a fast and efficent information handler. If you add enviroment to this, we can see how an enviroment that is full of different stimulus affect to the system and boosts and hastens the capability to learn and adapt new things.

Also, I think social side must be considered as well. Motivation and support is priceless when we are talking about untapping dormant capabilities. In a social enviroment where a person is supported and encouraged to use his talents the intelligence can be nurtured. If social enviroment is negative and uninviting the person might never understand how intelligent he actually is or loses that early life chance to develope it. Or motivation to do so. When speaking of social aspects, emotional intelligence is worth of mentioning. While they both has some kind of correlation, it is surprisingly often the case that someone who is otherwise very intelligent has very weak in his social relationship. Personally, I think emotional intelligence is crucial aspect that should not be negleted.

I like the theory that Raymond Cattell brought. He created the concepts of fluid intelligence and chrystallized intelligence. Fluid intelligence is the ability to see factual connections, solve problems, the creative, flexible intellect. It is only partly dependable on culture or knowledge. When you live long and solve lot of problems, you start to need less and less this fluid intelligence, since you usually always find a familiar and established solution. So this chrystallized intelligence is more bound to culture. It is intelligence that is habitual, stays for same for very long time ( vocabularly, mathematics, common knowledge ). Fluid intelligence, however, is on its peak when you are approx. 15-25.

I won't post more now. I see, if this encourages any new conversation.

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

Sure, when you look at the macro level scheme of things, its easy to say a chimp may have a consciousness or at least a low level of it. But how can we say that a electron is conscious, for we can dictate many of its actions from probabilistic theory and electromagnetism.

Saying the entire universe is consciousness is saying all matter is consciousness, to one degree or another. That is just impossible according to our definition of consciousness. That means that cup of coffee next to me has consciousness.

Intelligence comes before consciousness, not consciousness before intelligence, if there was any sequence to the two ideas. .....

Intelligence is very primitive, very simple. It is identifying patterns, processing what is happening and establishing logical interpretations of said events and how handle them. Consciousness, in respect to intelligence, is the decision "I" make after reasoning. In a way we are slaves to reason , which i can't say is a bad thing, I hate to be a slave to illogical impulses.

Not really sure where I am going with this, but basically it is our disagreement between two very old modules of philosophy.

When we process stimuli, how do systematically evaluate a response. Does it go Instinct - Reason - Consciousness or Instinct - Consciousness - Reason.

I tend to think the first module.

I suppose I respectfully disagree with your definition of consciousness then. I don't think it has anything to do with "I." I think "I" is an unnecessary aspect of humanity that we evolved into by chance. It may be necessary, but it certainly is not permanent.

Consciousness is the capability of observation, and observation is not separate from what is being observed. The separation is an illusion.

I never defined consciousness in that excerpt, so I don't know why you used that passage Omnis Dei.... confused the shit out of me when I tried to write a response.

I've been talking about the consciousness of our actions, while you are concerning yourself with whether or not consciousness is possible without the self.

You want to say that robots and computers are conscious? Why not label the thread "Artificial Consciousness" instead of "Define Intelligence"

What I'm trying to say is there is no difference between action and manifestation. The action of a conscious being (in the way we view it) is the simple accumulation of causations. In much the same way, the manifestation of the universe is causality.

an accumulation of actions usually lends itself to a manifestation of sorts. In other words, my neurons fired, my muscles twitched, my arm moved = the actions, my arm moved = the manifestation (to us humans). However all of these actions manifested themselves on some level in time and space. Manifestation is just used for observable matter. I don't think this is relevant to consciousness though.

Exactly. Consciousness is completely unnecessary to life the way you're describing it. The way I see it, the observer is one with the observation and the separation we have between what we see and the thing that sees it is a complete fabrication.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Exactly. Consciousness is completely unnecessary to life the way you're describing it. The way I see it, the observer is one with the observation and the separation we have between what we see and the thing that sees it is a complete fabrication.

Ok this helped me understand the focus of the conversation.

You are suggesting that consciousness is an ambiguity associated with the different manifestations of an act..

So let us examine the decision making process of a "conscious" act.

I see an apple, I realize that I am hungry and want to eat the apple, but rather than dive into the apple, I am on a diet and refrain. "free will" is exhibited and I consciously avoided my instinct, as the devil advocate would argue.

This is still just simplified to a more sophisticated reflex of me being able to see into the impending doom of eating an apple and not being able to be as capable of mating because I am overweight and therefore I avoid this apple to survive, or improve my chances of survival through better capacity to mate.

Rather than perhaps a second level observer that judges my emotions and reasons through them, we could view this as a highly developed intelligent act of me being able to associate my patterns and change them before the situation becomes bad very very far into the future.

Perhaps what we are really looking at is the evolution of the "instinct", as it were. Back to being a fatalist......lol.

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

Ok this helped me understand the focus of the conversation.

You are suggesting that consciousness is an ambiguity associated with the different manifestations of an act..

So let us examine the decision making process of a "conscious" act.

I see an apple, I realize that I am hungry and want to eat the apple, but rather than dive into the apple, I am on a diet and refrain. "free will" is exhibited and I consciously avoided my instinct, as the devil advocate would argue.

This is still just simplified to a more sophisticated reflex of me being able to see into the impending doom of eating an apple and not being able to be as capable of mating because I am overweight and therefore I avoid this apple to survive, or improve my chances of survival through better capacity to mate.

Rather than perhaps a second level observer that judges my emotions and reasons through them, we could view this as a highly developed intelligent act of me being able to associate my patterns and change them before the situation becomes bad very very far into the future.

Perhaps what we are really looking at is the evolution of the "instinct", as it were. Back to being a fatalist......lol.

This is a good example, let's keep it simple so we can talk about it.

An animal with the same kind of cognition we attribute to humans would not think in terms of diet in order to refrain from eating food, but it would be pressured by other conditions such as feeding its young or simply not being hungry.

If humans were free of thought, then we would have no need of this idea of "diet" as we would simply stop eating when we are full or die, thus removing our genes from the pool and with it, the instinct to over eat. But be cause we have thought, we also must make conscious decisions in order to wade our way through a maze of indiscernible impulses to figure out what's best for us. I propose this is simply a more complicated version of what any organism goes through in its contemplation of action. In the end, we are responding to stimulus and though the stimulus goes through a maze of thought in order to manifest as action, the only difference between a human and any other organism is that maze of thought. Consciousness is still existent in these less evolved organisms. They just never stop and think "I am" as they do it.

If you actually stop and imagine everything you see as yourself, the illusion of separation between you and your observations becomes readily apparent.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I don't believe the two are married, neither in common use of the terms nor in actual definition. I agree intelligence is something observed through action and cannot be described as it is, but this also means that there's no solid line separating intelligent from non-intelligent, nor conscious from non-conscious.

There's not a lot of substance here. Wouldn't you think that if intelligence can only be observed through action, then surely it does not apply to things that do not or cannot act? E.g. Inert objects, which are arguably both unaware and unintelligent, or in your words, non-intelligent and non-conscious.

The quote: "...but this also means that there's no solid line separating intelligent from non-intelligent, nor conscious from non-conscious. " does not really show me how you think the two terms are not "married" either.

That which serves certain ends.