6 ms·

Question: What do you consider ‘intelligence’? I mean, we don’t need to look outside our own planet to find traits of what I consider intelligent behavior in o

Question: What do you consider ‘intelligence’? I mean, we don’t need to look outside our own planet to find traits of what I consider intelligent behavior in other species. I have a feeling that if we find an alien species it wont be intelligent, simply because we won’t define it as such. They might even have technology we couldn’t even begin to understand, but at the same time they will probably fail at exhibiting something we consider basic. And worse, they will have no way of being taught. Aside: I suggest in the future—if you want to avoid pedantic comment like these—that you reword your last sentence to include intelligent life on earth, e.g. “The notion that earth is the only planet to harbor intelligent life...”

ChuckMcM 6y ago
Its a fair question. My take on it is more toward the introspection/self-analytical side of the argument than the tool-using/self-awareness side. Though both are clearly "intelligent" in the dictionary definition. In casual conversation however, per Gretchen McCulloch's book "Because Internet"[1], I tend to stick with phrases that are most accessible rather than those that are most precise. My experience is that being overly precise in my speech can be off-putting to people. Enough so, that when I have encouraged feedback, both positive and negative, on my communication skills it came up more than once as "making you seem like you are showing off how much you know about something and making others feel dumb." [1] Really a great read, my daughter got it for me for my birthday and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
- runarberg 6y ago
  Fair enough. I do think that finding evidence of extra-terrestrial life would be amazing enough. If we could then later explore how life outside our own planet behaves, I am in no doubt that our minds will be blown. And if we find a way to communicate with one of these species... perhaps by that time any philosophical speculation on what intelligence is will be rendered obsolete.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  making you seem like you are showing off how much you know about something and making others feel dumb I wish we could get past this (finding intelligence offensive while finding physical strength appealing) as a species. But until then it's good advice. It's also a bit of a double bind: if you're not precise enough, someone will be offended by your ambiguity. If you're too precise, someone will be offended by your precision. It limits the rate at which experts can convey knowledge, which can be problematic at work as teams are limited to the pace of whoever is most offended.
  - eru 6y ago
    When communicating face-to-face, you typically have real time feedback. So you can afford to be more potentially ambiguous, because you monitor for misunderstandings, and clear them up as they arise. If you want to go all mathematical, that's similar to just sticking a checksum on tcp packets and resending vs the lengths that CD-ROMs go to correct errors. Or to bring another analogy, compare an interactive proof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_proof_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_proof_system) with a more conventional formal proof. As an aside, people do admire intelligence in real life perhaps more so than physical strength, but a minimum of social acumen goes a long way.
- eru 6y ago
  > My experience is that being overly precise in my speech can be off-putting to people. Enough so, that when I have encouraged feedback, both positive and negative, on my communication skills it came up more than once as "making you seem like you are showing off how much you know about something and making others feel dumb." File this under 'know your audience'. On HN (and other nerdy and text-based communication) precision is often much more welcome than in oral communication in real life. Even with the same sort of people.
- rbanffy 6y ago
  We could use an utilitarian definition of "intelligent life" that would mean something like "able to communicate or directly interact with us". I wonder if ant colonies or fungi consider us intelligent life.
  - runarberg 6y ago
    A relativistic definition of intelligence: I think it would be hard to do, e.g. your example would make dogs one of the most intelligent species on Earth, relative to humans, much smarter then chimpanzees. To be frank I find the whole concept of intelligence to be more problematic then its worth. That said, if we are ever able to establish communication with a species other then our own that evolved elsewhere in the galaxy, intelligence might at that point become an outdated concept.
holoduke 6y ago
if we find an alien species they would indeed be equal or less intelligent. a more intelligent species would find us first.
- runarberg 6y ago
  Sorry, but you are missing the point. Intelligence is an incredibly human-centric concept. Everything we consider “intelligent” behavior, or “intelligent” traits is relative to humans. A good example is how we consider Chimpanzees a “remarkably intelligent species” because they use tools like we humans do. However an ant colony is not considered intelligent even though it has large scale agriculture, social hierarchy and communication techniques we don’t fully understand. And let alone fungal networks which behavior is so alien to us that it could be exhibiting behavior very intelligent to them, but our understanding of fungal life is so limited that we can’t even begin to see it as ‘intelligent’. If we do come across extra-terrestrial life (more likely through our telescopes, rather then by paying a visit) it will be even more alien to us then our mushroom cousins. It will have evolved in a planet vastly different from us, it might communicate in a way we can’t even think of. Our technology will have more in common with the ant colonies then with the alien technology. If we do come across extra-terrestrial life and are able to marvel at their intelligence, then I think it will have more to do with our ability to understand things out of our scope, rather then some absolute and arbitrary metric of intelligence.
  - erikbye 6y ago
    > However an ant colony is not considered intelligent even though it has large scale agriculture, social hierarchy and communication techniques we don’t fully understand. Actually, ants are frequently deemed smart and intelligent. Such suppositions are common.
    - runarberg 6y ago
      Indeed, and there are also people actively investigating plant intelligence. The question that arises though, when we find more and more examples of intelligent behavior across the tree of of life, is intelligence actually that useful of a concept?
oxed 6y ago
> Aside: I suggest in the future—if you want to avoid pedantic comment like these—that you reword your last sentence to include intelligent life on earth, e.g. “The notion that earth is the only planet to harbor intelligent life...” Pedantic note on "I suggest in the future": you didn't suggest it in the future. If you want to avoid pedantic comments like these, I suggest you assume good faith and stop being an ass, or, take an English class. Also, Earth, in your usage, is capitalized.
- runarberg 6y ago
  Sorry, but there is a fundamental difference. My original comment is about something that is either factually wrong (humans are not the only intelligent species on Earth), or problematic on a philosophical level (intelligent is not a useful concept). You point your criticism on my tone, or English ability, which is superficial. Also can people please stop attacking each others english ability, it is a really bad abelist thing to do. We don’t all come from an educated background, we don’t all have english as our native language. Please try to empathize with those of us that have a harder time using english then you.
simonh 6y ago
I've gone back and forth on this. As a kid I read plenty of older SF where humanocentric biases were laughably prevalent. Aliens were amazed at our incredibly advanced mathematics because we used the clearly superior Base 10. Or aliens adopted English because it was so much more sophisticated than their own languages. Aliens all being basically humanoid was explained because it is clearly the only body form suitable for developing advanced technology. In a kind of allergic reaction to this sort of thing, there was a movement in SF that aliens would be likely to be so different from us that we would be unlikely to even recognise them as intelligent. Stanislaw Lem's Solaris is a well known example, and the Pandora sequence by Frank Herbert was interesting. I never quite bought it though, and Nemesis by Isaac Asimov seemed to me to be a particularly lazy example that pretty much put me off the whole idea. (I'm a fan of Asimov, but this one didn't work for me). On the one had we can look at life on earth to see the huge variety of biological forms that are possible even just on our own planet, with fundamentally the same core biology throughout. On the other hand, any life in our universe is going to be constrained by the same basic principles of chemistry, physics and emergent constraints such as thermodynamics, information theory and natural selection. The problem with most of the efforts at 'truly alien' aliens is they emphasise their alien-ness by showing them violate such principles to show how 'we don't know as much as we think we do'. I don't buy it. Thermodynamics, natural selection, information theory, etc - we know these things. They're real constraints that any life, anywhere must contend with and they constrain what can or can't work within comprehensible limits. I'm not at all saying that genuine alien life can't be surprising, that we won't learn anything new from it. We learn new stuff form like here on earth all the time. I'm just saying we actually know a pretty decent amount about how the universe works at a basic level and this will give us a decent chance at figuring this stuff out. That's where I am this this now, but it's a complex issue. I really need to watch Arrival though.

ChuckMcM 6y ago

Its a fair question. My take on it is more toward the introspection/self-analytical side of the argument than the tool-using/self-awareness side. Though both are clearly "intelligent" in the dictionary definition. In casual conversation however, per Gretchen McCulloch's book "Because Internet"[1], I tend to stick with phrases that are most accessible rather than those that are most precise. My experience is that being overly precise in my speech can be off-putting to people. Enough so, that when I have encouraged feedback, both positive and negative, on my communication skills it came up more than once as "making you seem like you are showing off how much you know about something and making others feel dumb." [1] Really a great read, my daughter got it for me for my birthday and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

runarberg 6y ago
Fair enough. I do think that finding evidence of extra-terrestrial life would be amazing enough. If we could then later explore how life outside our own planet behaves, I am in no doubt that our minds will be blown. And if we find a way to communicate with one of these species... perhaps by that time any philosophical speculation on what intelligence is will be rendered obsolete.
nitrogen 6y ago
making you seem like you are showing off how much you know about something and making others feel dumb I wish we could get past this (finding intelligence offensive while finding physical strength appealing) as a species. But until then it's good advice. It's also a bit of a double bind: if you're not precise enough, someone will be offended by your ambiguity. If you're too precise, someone will be offended by your precision. It limits the rate at which experts can convey knowledge, which can be problematic at work as teams are limited to the pace of whoever is most offended.
- eru 6y ago
  When communicating face-to-face, you typically have real time feedback. So you can afford to be more potentially ambiguous, because you monitor for misunderstandings, and clear them up as they arise. If you want to go all mathematical, that's similar to just sticking a checksum on tcp packets and resending vs the lengths that CD-ROMs go to correct errors. Or to bring another analogy, compare an interactive proof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_proof_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_proof_system) with a more conventional formal proof. As an aside, people do admire intelligence in real life perhaps more so than physical strength, but a minimum of social acumen goes a long way.
eru 6y ago
> My experience is that being overly precise in my speech can be off-putting to people. Enough so, that when I have encouraged feedback, both positive and negative, on my communication skills it came up more than once as "making you seem like you are showing off how much you know about something and making others feel dumb." File this under 'know your audience'. On HN (and other nerdy and text-based communication) precision is often much more welcome than in oral communication in real life. Even with the same sort of people.
rbanffy 6y ago
We could use an utilitarian definition of "intelligent life" that would mean something like "able to communicate or directly interact with us". I wonder if ant colonies or fungi consider us intelligent life.
- runarberg 6y ago
  A relativistic definition of intelligence: I think it would be hard to do, e.g. your example would make dogs one of the most intelligent species on Earth, relative to humans, much smarter then chimpanzees. To be frank I find the whole concept of intelligence to be more problematic then its worth. That said, if we are ever able to establish communication with a species other then our own that evolved elsewhere in the galaxy, intelligence might at that point become an outdated concept.

holoduke 6y ago

if we find an alien species they would indeed be equal or less intelligent. a more intelligent species would find us first.

runarberg 6y ago
Sorry, but you are missing the point. Intelligence is an incredibly human-centric concept. Everything we consider “intelligent” behavior, or “intelligent” traits is relative to humans. A good example is how we consider Chimpanzees a “remarkably intelligent species” because they use tools like we humans do. However an ant colony is not considered intelligent even though it has large scale agriculture, social hierarchy and communication techniques we don’t fully understand. And let alone fungal networks which behavior is so alien to us that it could be exhibiting behavior very intelligent to them, but our understanding of fungal life is so limited that we can’t even begin to see it as ‘intelligent’. If we do come across extra-terrestrial life (more likely through our telescopes, rather then by paying a visit) it will be even more alien to us then our mushroom cousins. It will have evolved in a planet vastly different from us, it might communicate in a way we can’t even think of. Our technology will have more in common with the ant colonies then with the alien technology. If we do come across extra-terrestrial life and are able to marvel at their intelligence, then I think it will have more to do with our ability to understand things out of our scope, rather then some absolute and arbitrary metric of intelligence.
- erikbye 6y ago
  > However an ant colony is not considered intelligent even though it has large scale agriculture, social hierarchy and communication techniques we don’t fully understand. Actually, ants are frequently deemed smart and intelligent. Such suppositions are common.
  - runarberg 6y ago
    Indeed, and there are also people actively investigating plant intelligence. The question that arises though, when we find more and more examples of intelligent behavior across the tree of of life, is intelligence actually that useful of a concept?

oxed 6y ago

> Aside: I suggest in the future—if you want to avoid pedantic comment like these—that you reword your last sentence to include intelligent life on earth, e.g. “The notion that earth is the only planet to harbor intelligent life...” Pedantic note on "I suggest in the future": you didn't suggest it in the future. If you want to avoid pedantic comments like these, I suggest you assume good faith and stop being an ass, or, take an English class. Also, Earth, in your usage, is capitalized.

runarberg 6y ago
Sorry, but there is a fundamental difference. My original comment is about something that is either factually wrong (humans are not the only intelligent species on Earth), or problematic on a philosophical level (intelligent is not a useful concept). You point your criticism on my tone, or English ability, which is superficial. Also can people please stop attacking each others english ability, it is a really bad abelist thing to do. We don’t all come from an educated background, we don’t all have english as our native language. Please try to empathize with those of us that have a harder time using english then you.

simonh 6y ago

I've gone back and forth on this. As a kid I read plenty of older SF where humanocentric biases were laughably prevalent. Aliens were amazed at our incredibly advanced mathematics because we used the clearly superior Base 10. Or aliens adopted English because it was so much more sophisticated than their own languages. Aliens all being basically humanoid was explained because it is clearly the only body form suitable for developing advanced technology. In a kind of allergic reaction to this sort of thing, there was a movement in SF that aliens would be likely to be so different from us that we would be unlikely to even recognise them as intelligent. Stanislaw Lem's Solaris is a well known example, and the Pandora sequence by Frank Herbert was interesting. I never quite bought it though, and Nemesis by Isaac Asimov seemed to me to be a particularly lazy example that pretty much put me off the whole idea. (I'm a fan of Asimov, but this one didn't work for me). On the one had we can look at life on earth to see the huge variety of biological forms that are possible even just on our own planet, with fundamentally the same core biology throughout. On the other hand, any life in our universe is going to be constrained by the same basic principles of chemistry, physics and emergent constraints such as thermodynamics, information theory and natural selection. The problem with most of the efforts at 'truly alien' aliens is they emphasise their alien-ness by showing them violate such principles to show how 'we don't know as much as we think we do'. I don't buy it. Thermodynamics, natural selection, information theory, etc - we know these things. They're real constraints that any life, anywhere must contend with and they constrain what can or can't work within comprehensible limits. I'm not at all saying that genuine alien life can't be surprising, that we won't learn anything new from it. We learn new stuff form like here on earth all the time. I'm just saying we actually know a pretty decent amount about how the universe works at a basic level and this will give us a decent chance at figuring this stuff out. That's where I am this this now, but it's a complex issue. I really need to watch Arrival though.