Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tdatirv!sarima
From: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: intelligence is what?
Message-ID: <33@tdatirv.UUCP>
Date: 19 Oct 90 18:07:54 GMT
References: <1990Oct11.195803.18308@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <26@tdatirv.UUCP> <1990Oct13.194921.7745@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Reply-To: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Teradata Corp., Irvine
Lines: 56

In article <1990Oct13.194921.7745@watdragon.waterloo.edu> cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley) writes:
>  The original latin meaning of 'conscious' was something like "a shared
>knowlegde" or interestingly, "a feeling of guilt or responsibility".  In
>other words, it described how one's knowlegde related one to others and
>vice versa.
>I do like the outward direction of its sense and would 
>generalize it to mean knowlegde of one's relation to the world.

This is indeed a very interesting concept, and may deserve consideration.
Unfortunately using the word conscious to refer to it is likely to cause
confusion - the dictionary I consulted marked that definition as 'archaic'
(and it was an old dictionary).  I think communication would be better served
by coming up with a new term for this worthy concept.

>>Could it be that self-awareness plus intelligence generates consciousness??
 
>  I don't see how, in the senses given above, one could really exist without
>the other.  They are complimentary but simultaneous, like mass and velocity.
>Incidently, I don't see a reason for assuming that they are absolute, ie.
>that something is 'conscious' or 'self-aware' or not.  There is nothing
>I can see that would exclude degrees of them.

I suggested that causality based on my rather different definition of conscious.
With you definition they are indeed independent, with mine they are probably
not.

Certainly I admit to degrees of most of these things.  As a biologist I am
probably more aware than most how much of what we humans do is foreshadowed
in other animals.

>>Tentative Definitions:
>>Intelligence:	the capacity to use models and patterns to reason about and
>>		make decisions with incomplete or distorted data.

>  How about the ability to completely ignore data, or to act unreasonably?
>Several postings have pointed to the predictable stimulus-response 
>behaviour of 'lower' species as proving them to be less intelligent, and
>I quite agree.  Doesn't the ability to be 'irrational' only arise with
>intelligence?

I would say that unpredictability does *not* equate to irrationality.
The unpredictability of intelligent being like us is at least in part due
to the complexity of the internal models we maintain, and the delicate
interaction between the models, the stimulus and the behavior.

The predictability of 'lower' animals is proof of a lack of internal models,
and thus is an indication of lack of intelligence.  (Direct programmed response
to a stimulus does not require an internal model - just a wire).

When we humans truly act irrationally I would *not* say we are acting with
intelligence.  And less intelligent animals do act irrationally when placed
in a situation for which they are ill suited.  I suspec this is also the
source of much of human irrationality.
-- 
---------------
uunet!tdatirv!sarima				(Stanley Friesen)