Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!watdragon!violet!cpshelley
From: cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley)
Subject: Re: intelligence is what?
Message-ID: <1990Oct21.030752.22149@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Owner of Many System Processes)
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <1990Oct11.195803.18308@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <26@tdatirv.UUCP> <1990Oct13.194921.7745@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <33@tdatirv.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 03:07:52 GMT
Lines: 95

In article <33@tdatirv.UUCP> sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>In article <1990Oct13.194921.7745@watdragon.waterloo.edu> cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley) writes:
>>I do like the outward direction of its sense ["conscious"] 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.

  Thank you for the diplomacy!  What is old could be new again! :>  But
seriously, I see your point.  Well, when greek and latin fail - turn to
GERMAN!  How about "Gewissen"?  Just another word to look up?

>
>>>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.

  Ahh.  Ok, I guess I did not understand the idea you were using.  But 
otherwise it seems to me that the ideas 'self-awareness' and 'conscious'
come very close (at least) to collapsing together.  Do you mean self-
awareness is a starting state, intelligence is a process (knowledge?)
and consciousness is the result of applying the latter on the former?
If so, what advantage is gained by this distinction, or whichever
distinction you had in mind?

>
>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).
>

  You are right to point this out in the context I brought it up in.  The
point is well taken.  Let me re-express what I was trying to say.  In the
first part of my earlier response, I tried to distinguish a subjective
awareness (what I called "self-awareness") from an objective one (that
I characterized as "conciousness") - essentially a field/ground
distinction familiar from psychology or even formal logic (Goedel's
theorem).  Here, I am simply saying that I don't believe that
'intelligence' can be fully described in isolation either, that some
*simultaneous* notion of 'unintelligence' is necessary.  I used the
terms "irrational" and (ill-advisedly) "unpredictable" as synonyms.

  So my comment on your 'model' model (:>) would be that it is good
as far as it goes, but is not 'complete' in a formal sense.  The
corollary would be that intelligence can still exist in the absense
of models, if the circumstance arises.  Both conditions are, I am
saying, necessary.  I hesitate to add sufficient since I doubt this
is the last word on the subject...

>When we humans truly act irrationally I would *not* say we are acting with
>intelligence.

  Given what I just said, obviously I do not agree that this is true
in *all* cases.

>  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.

  No arguement there!
--
      Cameron Shelley        | "Saw, n.  A trite popular saying, or proverb. 
cpshelley@violet.waterloo.edu|  So called because it makes its way into a
    Davis Centre Rm 2136     |  wooden head."
 Phone (519) 885-1211 x3390  |				Ambrose Bierce