WJ

Sometimes we read into multiple choice so much so they seemingly cannot be answered. I bet there are 'many questions' that are found necessary to change/word differently after 'mass intelligence' complains enough about them, and sometimes, rightfully so!

This makes a case for a sort of arbitrary intelligence.

John Page

Oxymoron. (if you're smart enough to work it out, though).

To act intelligently is to outwit your foe using mental activity. Measures of intelligence are thus relative, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king (metaphorically).

All we are measuring/detecting is the efficacy of mental capability toward some aim, hence we confer the property of "having intelligence".

Cheers, John

Kharakov

Patterns, patterns, patterns.

Match complex speech patterns to other patterns, copy some more patterns, emulate the patterns that appear to be the most successful in accumulating the resources to duplicate patterns.

Intelligence is the ability to observe, understand, and emulate patterns of behavior. Unfortunately, many people emulate and reproduce the patterns of behavior that they wrongfully believe will grant greater ability to control and emulate the patterns of behavior that are around them. The lack of wisdom (knowledge of many patterns of behavior accumulated through time and experience) leads many people down the path of emulating unsuccessful patterns that are ultimately not self sustaining (crime, fraud, environmental negligence).

-k

WJ

Philo/John!

"Where do you come up with this stuff?"

Inspired by God.



John,

Oxymoron-it appears that answer is absolute.




BTW, it looks like we have a Penn State member on board. We better watch our p's and q's.


<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

S.A.TAN

Wow, wat a lot of definitions! However I strongly disagree with an opinion from AtlanticCitySlave

"Not being able to state with precision what intelligence means does not mean people are not justified in using the term"

Assuming that the purpose of language is to communicate specific meaning and that it is possible for one word to have more than one specific meaning, it is imperative that we must stipulate a defintion for each word.

Or else we could be disputing over things relating to intelligence and find out at the end of the day that the reason why we are disputing is becos we have different ideas of what intelligence means in the very first place.

Aside from that, I will now throw down the gauntlet since everybody has given their two cents worth.

I define Intelligence as such (pardon my predilection towards mathematical language):

-Intelligence is the rate at which you learn a specific quantity of knowledge at a given depth of understanding.-

-Or, Intelligence is the depth at which you learn a specific quantity of knowledge within a given time limit-

-Or intelligence is the quantity of knowledge you can amass at a given depth of understanding and within a given time frame-

I welcome any criticism

dannyk

i will try
The ability to turn subjective experience into objective understanding.

WJ

I think that it is ok to judge intelligence by a measurment of extremes (math). In as much as math is an abstract entity or concept which has an independent existence and is only useful once it is applied to a some thing, it does offer a nice analogy to the truth in/about knowledge. But, intellegence is not a timeless concept. It is dependent on time for its development.

Take a look at the extreme's in the character Spock and his so-called Being. His intellect was based upon the apriori logic of math. He was only programmed to respond with yes or no answers. That begs the question; does intellect account for the 'i don't know'? I assume it does. I assume that the very recognition that 'i don't know' means intelligence is now, "in-use". And that explains the dependancy on time.

So, another paradox wouldn't you say? Perhaps it goes back to patterns. Perhaps there exists an 'approved pattern'? But what is the 'approval' based upon?

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

AtlanticCitySlave

“Assuming that the purpose of language is to communicate specific meaning and that it is possible for one word to have more than one specific meaning, it is imperative that we must stipulate a defintion for each word.”


-This is not what I said. I said giving a PRECISE definition of words is not necessary in order to use them. You also do not necessarily have to give a definition of each word regardless. To define red you could say to someone “see that light over there, the top light is what we call red” without giving any set definition of what “red” means (which would be rather hard if the person has never experienced red).


“Or else we could be disputing over things relating to intelligence and find out at the end of the day that the reason why we are disputing is becos we have different ideas of what intelligence means in the very first place.”


-My point was we often do not think in words, it is often hard to get our point across in words, etc., and it is often unreasonable to expect someone to define with precision exactly what they mean when using a word. People studying intelligence can rarely give an operative definition of what most would agree with constitutes intelligence. Regardless, when you say to someone “that person is really intelligent”, the majority of people will know exactly what you mean without saying with precision a definition of such.

snatchbalance

S.A.Tan,

From my perspective, your def. of I seems to reley on the rate at which information can be assimilated, i.e., more information assimilated in less time = greater I.

From this point of view, I guess, one could refer to certain idiot savants as being very I. But, I don't think most people would agree.

I tend to look at I in a manner similar to ACSlave. I know it when I see it.

I think that if you want to indentify specific factors that make up I, it can be done. But you need to expand your terminology.

SB

WJ

Atlantic!

Good point. Thus, since i'm on a James' kick today;


"...truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation. There is in the living act of perception always something that glimmers and twinkles and will not be caught, and for which reflection comes too late. No one knows this as well as the philosopher. "