[Fis] Defining Intelligence . . .

[Marcus Abundis]

Dear all,

— I find Yixin's Wed Oct 18 note (below) provocative, but which was
also pointed to in Krassimir's Sun Oct 15 note, and seen in later
posts:

> (2) How to define the concept of intelligence? This is a very difficult problem. To my own understanding, the following short statement may serve as one of the candidates: Intelligence is the ability to solve problem but not the ability to find and define problem, the latter of which is one of the abilities for wisdom.<

— I do not find Karl's initial suggestion of:
> Rohracher [1] has defined in 1969 (and to my knowledge, no one has disputed this wording): “Intelligence is the degree of efficiency [of the CNS] while solving new problems.” <
— reductive (elemental) enough to be useful. Which seems proven in his
and ensuing discussions of many psychological (confused?) facets of
intelligence.

— But I like Pedro's note:
> Nobody would dare speak about intelligence in the "inanimate" world. Undoubtedly intelligence appears with life, with the biologic system. <
— as this offers a clear reductive START for broader discussion of
WHAT might entail intelligence, and what excludes intelligence. I
frame this in terms of 'adaptive logic'. For example, an atom of
oxygen, or carbon, zinc, etc. have no NEED to adapt to environs in
order to preserve its form or 'identity'. They instead help constitute
DYNAMIC environs, to which one adapts. Conversely, ALL Life forms
DYNAMICALLY adapt to environs to avoid extinction. This
adaptive/non-adaptive (animate/inanimate, Life/matter) difference
offers a clear INITIAL dividing line for framing intelligence. Thus,
adaptivity seems to first arise only at the level of molecules
('cells' for Pedro), but then only for CERTAIN (DAN/RNA?) molecules.

— Next, all ensuing adaptive expressions mark TYPES of intelligence
(diversity). This does not remove inanimate matter from being involved
in 'expressions of informatic intelligence' but places matter in the
realm of a material DYNAMIC CONTEXT, within which Life DYNAMIC CONTENT
unfolds its adaptive forms (evolutionary trees, etc.).

Karl's later point of:
> The dividing line is whether the object is a subject, that is whether it has its own impulses. As long as there is no spontaneous activity, (there exists an idle state or being switched off), the entity is an object. <
— echoes this view.

— Beyond initial adaptive/non-adaptive differences, one next asks –
HOW does adaptive CONTENT first arise? The answer is trial-and-error.
Every new-born Life form must somehow navigate evolutionary environs,
or expire. We all thus exercise trial-and-error, intuitively exploring
a primitive material (given bodily) form, learning to walk, drink,
eat, etc. In this way we first exhibit survival intelligence, and win
our first INFORMATIC (meaningful) experiences. This embodied form ties
to my earlier note on Aristotle's seeing the human hand as an
'instrument of instruments'. From this early embodied start, and with
an ambiguous functional (human hand) form – lacking purpose built
tools – we embark on a Life-long journey of exploring Self, Other, and
ENVIRONS, building MEANINGFUL INFORMATIC INTELLIGENCE along the way.

— Lastly, in understanding GENERAL INTELLIGENCE a reductive start
again helps. From trial-and-error, we first learn how things GENERALLY
work and GENERALLY fall apart, for GENERAL INTELLLIGENCE. Moreover, we
have two scientific models reflecting this: thermodynamic entropy for
how things GENERALLY FALL APART, and signal entropy for how things
GENERALLY WORK (as 'the mother of all models', see my prior-noted
paper). This is how I define intelligence . . . I am working on a
second paper (A Simplified A Priori Theory of Intelligence) to follow
my already-noted theory of meaning.

Marcus