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

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?