Intelligence is a tautological term. It is defined by itself. If you ask someone for examples of things inside the set of intelligence and outside of the set of

Intelligence is a tautological term. It is defined by itself. If you ask someone for examples of things inside the set of intelligence and outside of the set of intelligence, and then ask them to list off properties that would exclude something from the set, and properties that include something into the set, you will find things inside the set that have properties that should exclude them, and things outside the set which would have properties that should include them. But these contradictions will not cause the person to re-evaluate whether or not the things should be removed from the set or included in it, but instead they will become exceptions to the defining properties. Thus we have to abandon any sort of metric for intelligence and just call it a tautology and rely on an something that we can define to be the litmus for whatever property we are looking for. I think 'agency' should be under consideration for this, since it is actually somewhat definable and testable.