My intelligence can beat up your intelligence!

[Buffy]

The definition therefore becomes generally useless as that it is too vague in some areas while too constricted in other aspects.

The question really is "useless for what?" If its about getting a good enough SAT score to get into Cal or UCLA, well, that's one use. If its showing evolutionary progression, that's another. I go for the latter as being more interesting myself, and thus I favor the broader (but not "useless" I think!) defnition. Tree communication through pheromones is definitely intelligence in my book.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Fishteacher73]

The question really is "useless for what?" If its about getting a good enough SAT score to get into Cal or UCLA, well, that's one use. If its showing evolutionary progression, that's another. I go for the latter as being more interesting myself, and thus I favor the broader (but not "useless" I think!) defnition. Tree communication through pheromones is definitely intelligence in my book.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

 

The problem with the defionition is that it does not define what intelligence is adequately,IMO There is a human aplication, as to describing higher thinking, but it excludes anything that does not mimic human intelligence. That would be much like defining life as having all the qualities of a human. Anything that isn't a vertebrate would not qualify as life.

.

[niviene]

1) What is intelligence?

 

The ability to perceive the world and react to it in ways that enhance the organism's ability to survive.

 

I was applying what I believe intelligence is in the realm of the people that live in our society, even though I used other examples. In the most general sense, however, I agree with your definition of what I think intelligence is - any knowledge, whether instinctive or "learned". Further, according to this, I would also say that it's not comparable. I do think it is comparable within most people, but I don't feel that we have a really good way of making such a comparison yet. I don't feel that our standardized tests can measure the types of intelligence that different persons have.

[UncleAl]

Interesting perspective. So, the following folks do not matter:

 

1) Julius Caeser

2) George Washington

3) Mother Theresa

4) Picasso

5) Voltaire

6) Michaelangelo

7) Vladamir Horowitz

8) Ernest Hemingway

9) Oscar Hammerstein

10) Lou Gehrig

Politics and the Liberal and Fine Arts are ephemeral and subjective. They won't keep you alive except by stealing from others who are productive in meaningful things. Sports are utterly meaningless. Mother Theresa was a sadistic monster inhaling the agonies of her charges like the finest perfumes. Piccasso, French Impressionists, and Modern Art overall are a tax dodge erected by American wealthy to hide their assets from the IRS after WWI costs were recovered from their hides: buy limted edition crap, trade amongst selves at auction for steeply escalating prices, finally "charitably" donate to a museum for the tax write-off, said museums' boards being the same wealthy who ran the scam.

 

You don't really believe that Jackson "Jack the Dripper" Polack or John Cage had any talent of any kind, do you? Lou Gehrig's 2130 straight games pale before Cal Ripken Jr.'s 2632 games - and neither means anything at all. Michelangelo included an intact foreskin on his Jewish "David." Didn't he even suspect? da Vinci included leavened bread in his "The Last Supper," that was a Jewish Passover seder. Silk brocades with prominent Arabic inscriptions praising Mamluk sultans, originally worn as signs of status and allegiance, were sewn into 14-15th century ecclesiastical vestments throughout Europe. Renaissance Madonnas painted wearing fine silks (already silly) have their hems decorated with stylized Arabic script, "there is no God but God and Mohammet is his messenger."

 

Does your toilet work? That's important in a bigger way.

[Fishteacher73]

Does your toilet work? That's important in a bigger way.

 

We aren't here to extole the virtues of John Crapper or to argue that he's smarter than him. Lets stay on thread...A discussion of what the nature of intelligence is before we start trying to measure individuals in it.

[Biochemist]

The question really is "useless for what?" ...

I don't know if I can speak for FsT on this, but my point about the definition being useless was srtictly related to the linguistic value. If every time we use the word "intelligence" we have to define it, then it is not necessary to use the word at all. There are certainly cases in normal usage where it is valuable (e.g.,"I think Bobby is more intelligent than his brother") as some sort of indicator, but even in these cases there are alternatives that are more accurate and less misleading (e.g., "I think Bobby gets better gardes in school than his brother"). The word does not not seem concise enough to use in a technical conversation of any sort.

[Biochemist]

Politics and the Liberal and Fine Arts are ephemeral and subjective.......... Michelangelo included an intact foreskin on his Jewish "David." Didn't he even suspect? .....

 

Does your toilet work? That's important in a bigger way.

UA- I have enoticed a recurring theme in your anti-cultural critiques related to the transendent value of toilet hardware. I am wondering whether you are a paid lobbyist for Kohler.

 

...And who is responsible for the 1.6 GPF (gallon per flush) limits on US toilets? (Most of us consider them to be 3.2 GPS toilets.) That must really stick in your anti-cultural craw.

 

...And what is a craw, anyway? Why do things always get stuck in it?

[Buffy]

If every time we use the word "intelligence" we have to define it, then it is not necessary to use the word at all. There are certainly cases in normal usage where it is valuable (e.g.,"I think Bobby is more intelligent than his brother") as some sort of indicator...

Oh certainly, but there are two semantic issues here: relative usage--as in your example--in which case I think most of us on the thread would agree that there are some aspects that can be used to measure relative position, although of course you still have the apples-oranges arguments if you try to start equating the relative measurements with judgements of "better" or "worse"; or the absolute binary "is/is not intelligent" usage where you get into real trouble even with folks who are not party to this thread. This is actually what motivated the options on the 2364 I started a while back: who considers only humans to be intelligent? No one so far...

 

I may be extreme by saying "Venus Flytraps show intelligence", but its actually hard to argue against it!

 

Intelligently,

Buffy

[Biochemist]

..I may be extreme by saying "Venus Flytraps show intelligence", but its actually hard to argue against it!

I didn't think that was extreme at all. I think anything that reproduces could be characterized as intelligent. That comes pretty close to the definition you offered above. I can't decide whether I think computers can be regarded as intelligent. I think the answer is no (they are just a tool, like a hammer: the hammer maker has the intelligence) but I could be persuaded otherwise.

[Buffy]

I can't decide whether I think computers can be regarded as intelligent.

That's where the qualification of "enhance the organism's ability to survive" in my original definition comes in. I'd restate this to emphasize that its really an issue of using it to ensure/enhance reproduction. When computers can reproduce and use self-modification to start evolving, then they'll definitely be intelligent.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Biochemist]

..When computers can reproduce and use self-modification to start evolving, then they'll definitely be intelligent....

I can't wait until my PC can generate little PDAs and cell phones.

[Robust]

Unfortunately, it is too often the case that it is not who as the greater intelligence that prevails but who has control of its dissemination.

[ThatWierdGuy]

Well, to whomever is defending the point that IQ is a way to measure intellegence (not directing it at anyone, I only read the first post), I believe that it is silly to measure "overall" intellegence on one test. Most experts on intellegence will tell you that there is no way to measure intellegence, because there are sooo many aspects to intellegence. In addition, most of these experts will tell you that IQ only targets a specific kind of intellegence (including the CREATOR of the IQ I might add), more specifically logical-mathmatical thinking.

 

There have been more recent tests targeted to measure creative thinking, CQ tests and non-verbal analytical tests. It will be interesting to point out that the results have little to no correlation to IQ. In other words, a person who scores high on the IQ might not score high in CQ or analytical thinking, or vice versa. If IQ measured every aspect of intellegence, this should'nt be happening.

 

So who is more intellegent? The highly creative person with the IQ of 115 who invents the internet or makes millions of money on bestselling fiction novels, or the not creative person with an IQ of 145 who works and Mercendes Benz and discovers a way to make their cars 500 miles more reliable? I would say the first one.

 

In my opinion creativte thinking is much more important then logical-mathmatical thinking, some great inventors probably had average IQs but were highly creative. Since IQ cant measure creative thinking, I think we need a new intellegence test.

 

I also might add that the American media tends to hype up the validity of IQ tests, which sends a message to the public that this is the only measure of intellegence.

[infamous]

We aren't here to extole the virtues of John Crapper or to argue that he's smarter than him. Lets stay on thread...A discussion of what the nature of intelligence is before we start trying to measure individuals in it.

 

It should have been known before-hand that the title to this thread "My intelligence can beat up your intelligence" would evoke this typical response from our resident genius , go figure??????????

 

BTW Fish, I'm referring of course to Uncle.