🚀 go-pugleaf

From:  William H. Calvin   WCalvin@U.Washington.edu


>I've been working on some definitions of intelligence for a
>forthcoming article and would appreciate comments.  If these seem a
>little disjointed, it is because I've excerpted them from a 5,000 word
>article.

I think that you were right when you wrote that the definition of intelligence
is like consciencousness.  It is difficult to define.  Whatever intelligence
is, I submit that it is relative, and it is not necessarily defined by the
characteristics/criteria that humans have set.  I'll explain better below.

>      A particularly intelligent person often seems "quick" and is
>capable of mentally juggling many things simultaneously. 

>      Versatility is another characteristic, and most animals are
>narrow specialists.

>      Planning more than fifteen minutes ahead is rare and, when
>seen, is usually for routine futures such as the approach of winter. 
>      Many animal species can learn a basic vocabulary of symbols. 

One of the things that strikes my attention about this is our current state of
existence as humans.  Many of us live in cities or modern civilization, and it
is not necessary to be quick, jugle many things at once, and be versitle.  Many
of us go to work everyday and just live out a scheduled existence (9-5 job
etc).  Even in a laborious job or when working long hours, if you do the same
thing every day, you only
need to have so much of the aboue qualities.  In other words, to me many
humans (who are trying to set the creterion for intelligence) are hardly
versitale in their daily life at all.  In a game of pure survival like we find
in nature often, I think that being a narrow specialist is quite intelligent. 
Humans have certainly mastered the art.  Aren't ants admired for their
teamwork?   Part of being a narrowed specialist means that you know what to
avoid, and where to spend your energy to get the most energy return.

	With the planning thing, I think that that criteria may be somewhat ill
founded when deciding the criteria for intelligence.  It is not necessary to
plan ahead of time like humans do with health care plans, pensions and their
job next year.  If you are a squirrel, you save nuts for next winter, and if
you are a bear, you store fat for the winter.  It makes no sense to store any
more reserves.  The energy to maintain them is greater than the payoff, and
the balance of mother nature will provide when it is time - consistently (every
summer for example).

	Humans found it necessary to 1) evolve their environment and 1) Adapt
to it when they could not change it. I think this *might* be a criteria for 
intelligence.  

	I think that humans tend to measure intelligence relatively to one
another.  The situation in which intelligence is measured by humans is also
very specific.  In the first case, like you mentioned earlier, one person will
say that another is very smart because of their grades in school etc.  But what
people fail to realise (the second case) is that a person's success in school
will not mean success anywhere else.  For example, I would like to see a very
*successful* doctor survive in the forest for three weeks with mabye a shovel,
fishing pole (not being used with plastic line).  In other words, the notion 
that a scientist or professor is more intelligent than an accountant or lawyer
or ditch digger is bogus.

Just my $.02.

My response in no way reflects the opinion of my employer, Central Washington
University.

Scott Schilling
Programmer
Central Washington University