h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: What is Intelligence - A582266
Author: xyroth (rash enough to tackle intelligence@A584525) - U149792

Well, here is the second entry in the first batch.

I can't really say very much about this entry, because it doesn't really say very much, does it?

I agree. The question 'What is intelligence?' is fundamental to the whole project. The Russian answer you say is the most useful is one I find quite useless, being entirely self-referential and therefore essentially meaningless.

'Make up your own mind' is no good. You have to start from some common ground, or at least define your own position, otherwise the whole thing is pointless and will just lead to arguments going round and round.

The answer to the question 'What is intelligence?' may turn out to be a long one, and not a simple one, but it cannot be shirked.

Bels

given the complete lack of answers to the question in the literature, how would you suggest I state a position?

All the work on intelligence that I have read (and I have read a lot) starts from the position that intelligence is pre-existing, and ignores this fundamental question to cover assorted technicalities.

the russian definition seems useless, until you look at it's negation, which is if it is not giving intelligent answers, you can't be asking intelligent questions.

I do try and covery a few different viewpoints as to how this question is asnwered, but if you know of any others, then please tell me and I will try and add them.

On the contrary, it is I who would look to an entry entitled 'What Is Intelligence?' for guidance on this subject. I don't know what it is. Consequently it's a word I don't have very much use for, or use very often. I would really like to know.

I don't know what quality it is that Intelligence Tests measure, except that I don't do brilliantly at them, and find them boring and uninspired, yet don't regard myself as being unintelligent.

Maybe 'intelligence' belongs to a class of words, such as, for example, 'love', that we all use but cannot define globally. If that is the case, you can't talk sensibly about 'intelligence', but only about certain types of intelligence, or examples of intelligence, as you can talk about different notions of love or experiences of love without attempting to answer definitively 'What is Love?'

"if it is not giving intelligent answers, you can't be asking intelligent questions" - but it is quite possible to give an 'intelligent' answer to a 'stupid' question. Again, it all depends on what you mean by intelligent questions/answers, so round in circles we go again.

Bels

OK, I have an issue and a solution. Issue, I too assumed that you would answer the question "What is Intelligence?".

The problem is the reader's anticipation of an answer, when what we actually get are a few definitions of intelligence, none of which are very good (which is inherent in asking difficult questions, and not a knock on your writing in ANY WAY), adn a description of a few different kinds of intelligence.

Here's how this chapter breaks down for me:
P#1:
"You could say (and many have) that intelligence is that which is measured by intelligence tests. The problem with this is that it assumes the answer to the question it is asking. If you are dealing with normal humans, this isn't too much of a problem, but for anyone outside of the normal group the tests don't really work."

1)'You' should be 'one', it's a common convention that *I* disagree with,but everyone will say that.
2) The second sentence is clunky, lots of pronouns and 2 "is"es.
3) The thrid sentence leads us down a path that seems promising, perhaps further discussion of below and above normal human intelligence is warranted here, with regard to IQ testing. How does it fail?

P#2:
"Animal intelligence certainly exists, with 98% of the genes between humans and some apes being identical, it would be the height of hubris to suggest it didn't, but you can't measure it with IQ tests. However some chimps (washo and panbanisha spring to mind) can communicate using sign language. Unfortunately, they only say simple things like "want banana" of "jenny hug", much like a very young child might."
1) Sentence one whould be borken up into two sentences, as it is a run-on. Otherwise it reads well and makes a great point.

2)sentence 2: You leap from failing to measure simian IQ to ape communication. Is this sentence trying to say that the failure of measuring ape IQ is in their inability to communicate? Or are you trying to say that communication is needed for intelligence?
Either way, you can explain it very well with a little more.

3) I think this sentence is off tract. OK, just to antaognize you: are young children unable to be tested with IQ tests, or do they not have enough intelligence to qualify? Obviously both are not true, so if apes (even some) can communicate at the level of small children and small children can be IQ tested, then what you said in the previous sentence was wrong.


P#3
"Russian Artificial Intelligence (AI) researchers say that someone or something is intelligent if it gives intelligent answers to intelligent questions. While there are other definitions, this one does get around the problem that western AI have of arguing about what is intelligent and what isn't (for example: searle's chinese room). It also means that you can avoid the western split between social AI which is about how good the man-machine interface is, and technical AI which is more about things like does your house design program tell you if you are putting a door where you can't open it."
1)Sentence one might do with a block quote if you can find a good one, otherwise it's fine.
2)sentence 2 starts making differences with Western AI [researchers, sic] without explaining what western AI [researchers] are doing. Maybe toss in a sentence about western AI [research] before this. I know you make a link, but people will have to leave this page and link and then come back, why not toss in one sentence? You do clarify it somewhat in the NEXT sentence,but we haven't gotten there yet. How about: "Western AI research divides attention between man to machine interface questions and technical AI cappabilities."
3) the third sentence begins "it also means", that's pretty unclear. Perhaps: "Russian AI avoids". This sentence runs on too. How about:
"Russian AI research avoids the problems found with Western AI research. The division of Western AI research creates differences in the definitions of intelligencs. Namely, the difference between communicating intelligibly and problem solving."

P#4
"You also have extra-terrestrial intelligence. While they would have to be intelligent to communicate with us, the odds of them being anything like us is extremely remote, and so their intelligence would seem strange and very alien to us. Having said that, even people from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds seem alien in their intelligence, so as long as we are prepared to work at it, it is perfectly possible to have some area of common understanding."
1) This paragraph would fit better after the discussion about the animals. You can change the first sentence to link back,:
"Besides terrestrial intelligence lies the matter of extra-terrestrial intelligence."
2)You return to the differences between communication and intelligence. It needs to be more clear whether they are the same.
3)Drop "having said that,even" and you make a great point. But the sentence is a run-on. and everything after "so as long" is kindy honky. Make a stronger point about the difficulties with communication between people who THINK in different languages. Perhpas comment on the possibility of comsidering the intelligence of someone with whom communication is difficult. This is the "perception of intelligence"

Friar
ps. I'm sorry about the length of the post, you may have to digest it in several parts, i know, but I thought it would be more fair to give detailed opinion than to say, it's a bit vague and leave it at that.

thanks friar. that has given me a lot to think about.

I will go away and think, and then get back to you.

Xyroth, I just re-read what I wrote and it read pretty harsh. I hope you were able to NOT take it that way. I deconstruct everything I edit/proof read, and that lends itself to sentence by sentence analysis. I only employ it on work that lends itself to, well, promise. It's really labor intensive, and it's impossible to use on ones own writing ("those pronouns aren't UNCLEAR TO ME").

Anyway, it's really nit-picking and I hope you were able to take it for what it was: an effort to make a creative and unique entry as good as it possibly can be, easy to read, thoughtful, smart.

Still, I sounded like an a$$ in the post.

Friar

I like having my stuff proofread and nitpicked.

it is the only way that you can spot your own unnoticed assumptions.

it almost always improves things.

I will continue thinking your previous comments over, and see what I can do.

Thanks for understanding, if you seek to be further annoyed, i'll keep my eyes on the pages


Friar