3 ms·

Bravo. You can understand that only if you offer an abstract definition of terms like 'computer', 'computation', 'calculation' etc. If you define 'computing' as

Bravo. You can understand that only if you offer an abstract definition of terms like 'computer', 'computation', 'calculation' etc. If you define 'computing' as something these clusters of regular matter we call 'computers' do, then if would exclude animals and other things. But, when you're thinking in abstract terms, then you come to the conclusion that a lot of things in nature are 'computing'. The same thing could be said about 'intelligence'. Current definitions of intelligence are not abstract definitions(even though the word itself seems like some abstract term, similar to calculation, motion etc.), but rather are labels/descriptions of particular human traits. If a more abstract definition was offered, you would see a lot more things in nature 'becoming' intelligent. So, currently we are in a situation where 'intelligence' is defined in terms of human traits(like being able to speak human language, do human mathematics, drive cars etc), but then at the same time we're looking for intelligent aliens. You can't find 'intelligent' aliens if the term intelligence is defined in such a way to only ever apply to humans. It's really a parlor trick. This is an expression of human desire to feel special - you don't want to be labeled as a computer or cluster of regular matter - rather you are an 'intelligent' soul(a different substance, not a regular matter) made in the image of the most powerful creature in the universe who happens to love you and care about you.

tremon 10y ago
Current definitions of intelligence are not abstract definitions [..] but rather are labels/descriptions of particular human traits. Agreed with the rest of what you wrote, but "intelligence" is more or less uniformly defined as the ability to quickly assimilate and apply information. What we try to measure is the speed, accuracy and complexity of that process. We have tried to measure the same process with dogs, parrots, monkeys, and ravens, and we even use comparable scales (e.g. general opinion is that adult dogs can handle the same mental complexity as toddlers). You are correct that the tests we use incorporate human traits. But that's as much because we are mainly testing humans as because we use humans as our reference.
- realitycheckxxx 10y ago
  The definition you've offered is an abstract definition, but it's not the one used in experiments and in everyday life. What these experiments with animals are designed for is to check which animals can do things in a similar way to humans. Why are ravens intelligent? Is it because they can quickly process information? No, that is not what experiments are checking. They are labelled as intelligent because they can use tools to unlock their food. Why are dolphins intelligent? Is it because they process complex information quickly? No, it's because they have large brains and exhibit empathy towards humans plus they seem to be able to communicate with each other. People don't say "Well, that system can process complex information quickly, therefore it's intelligent". Instead, what you'll hear is "WOW, animal X can use tools, can communicate, organize in groups! They are more intelligent that we thought". Using tools or communicating is just one way of processing information. There are many other ways. For example, an animal might not be able to use tools in a cage to unlock their food, but they could be a terrific fighter in the jungle. Fighting in a jungle is a process that demands quick information processing, but those animals are somehow below in intelligence than revens or dogs. That is because people aren't using the definition you've provided. > You are correct that the tests we use incorporate human traits. But that's as much because we are mainly testing humans as because we use humans as our reference. There is no need to incorporate human traits, because you've already defined the term in a good way. Why do you need humans for reference? You have the definition, you can provide measurement for speed (X per second) and you're good to go. You don't use humans to measure acceleration of objects, so why would you use humans to measure intelligence?
RGamma 10y ago
This still leaves the mind-body problem. Got an opinion on that?

tremon 10y ago

Current definitions of intelligence are not abstract definitions [..] but rather are labels/descriptions of particular human traits. Agreed with the rest of what you wrote, but "intelligence" is more or less uniformly defined as the ability to quickly assimilate and apply information. What we try to measure is the speed, accuracy and complexity of that process. We have tried to measure the same process with dogs, parrots, monkeys, and ravens, and we even use comparable scales (e.g. general opinion is that adult dogs can handle the same mental complexity as toddlers). You are correct that the tests we use incorporate human traits. But that's as much because we are mainly testing humans as because we use humans as our reference.

realitycheckxxx 10y ago
The definition you've offered is an abstract definition, but it's not the one used in experiments and in everyday life. What these experiments with animals are designed for is to check which animals can do things in a similar way to humans. Why are ravens intelligent? Is it because they can quickly process information? No, that is not what experiments are checking. They are labelled as intelligent because they can use tools to unlock their food. Why are dolphins intelligent? Is it because they process complex information quickly? No, it's because they have large brains and exhibit empathy towards humans plus they seem to be able to communicate with each other. People don't say "Well, that system can process complex information quickly, therefore it's intelligent". Instead, what you'll hear is "WOW, animal X can use tools, can communicate, organize in groups! They are more intelligent that we thought". Using tools or communicating is just one way of processing information. There are many other ways. For example, an animal might not be able to use tools in a cage to unlock their food, but they could be a terrific fighter in the jungle. Fighting in a jungle is a process that demands quick information processing, but those animals are somehow below in intelligence than revens or dogs. That is because people aren't using the definition you've provided. > You are correct that the tests we use incorporate human traits. But that's as much because we are mainly testing humans as because we use humans as our reference. There is no need to incorporate human traits, because you've already defined the term in a good way. Why do you need humans for reference? You have the definition, you can provide measurement for speed (X per second) and you're good to go. You don't use humans to measure acceleration of objects, so why would you use humans to measure intelligence?

RGamma 10y ago

This still leaves the mind-body problem. Got an opinion on that?