|
|
|
|
|
#1
12-02-2005, 08:15 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
How do you Recognize Intelligence?
How would you recognize an intelligence greater than your own if you lack the intelligence to recognize it in the first place? For example, given only the writing on the blackboard, I can't comprehend nor tell the difference between Andy Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem and some random Grand Unified Theory. It might as be gibberish to me. Why do I take it for granted then that Wiles has really solved the problem?
__________________
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows - Robert A. Zimmerman 
|
|
#2
12-02-2005, 08:33 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Let's have a dose of Carleton's Theorem,Genius is the ability to recognise and understand abstract concept and distinguish the fallacy or validity of conflicting line of thought.
Intelligence is simple the ability to put to a practical and profitable application all that you have learned and absorbed.
__________________
|
|
#3
12-02-2005, 10:56 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ultimate intelligence is realizing how much sh!# you don't know...ultimate ignorance is not realizing you don't know sh!#!
__________________
2009 ML350 (106K) - Family vehicle 2001 CLK430 Cabriolet (80K) - Wife's car 2005 BMW 645CI (138K) - My daily driver 2016 Mustang (32K) - Daughter's car
|
|
#4
12-02-2005, 12:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The ability to develop a proof to a mathematical theorem is not of itself a sign of overall 'intelligence' but perhaps only that of extraordinary mathematical abilities. How does that person otherwise relate to the world? Are so-called 'savants' more intelligent, or more narrowly focused? Others can sing, paint, or play games far better than I, but are they more intelligent?
|
|
#5
12-02-2005, 02:44 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
OK let's narrow it down. How would someone, as an amateur mathematician, know without a doubt that the Riemann hypothesis has been proven. (or not)
 Can a chimp recognize the difference in mathematical abillity between me and my math professor? Can someone with the mathematical ability of a chimp recognize the difference?
__________________
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows - Robert A. Zimmerman
|
|
#6
12-06-2005, 05:36 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
This is giving me a headache. I think I'll have a shot, maybe two, of Maker's Mark and then go take my nap.
|
|
#7
12-06-2005, 07:02 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
#8
12-06-2005, 08:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
People recognize problem solving skills, I have trained many people that did not know jack squat about the task but worked through it proficiently through problem solving. Others fumble their way through or call in sick the next day and never return.
|
|
#9
12-06-2005, 08:26 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The SETI folks asked the more general question in order to make sense of possible signals from outer space. I think Carl Sagan addressed that in one of his essays in, "Dragons of Eden." But its been nearly 30 years since I read it. It's a good read, anyway.
Believers in God look at the universe and see the undeniable work of an infinitely intelligent being. I'll bet there are others who can look deep into a person's eyes and read that persons mind or soul or whatever. I imagine your question is directed more at the first: an objective indication of inexplicable deviation from statistical randomness. At it's simplest, it might be bioenergetics, allowing one to recognize a bacterium as alive. You go up the scale of physiological complexity and then at some point, have to look for more than physiology. Perhaps reaction to external stimulus? Then you go up the scale of stimuli and look for cognition of a higher-order than reaction. The ability to predict future events from past experiences as a start, maybe? Then move along that scale through logic and mathematics. Then switch to tool-making. Start with twigs inserted into grub burrows and work your way up to microprocessor design or genetic engineering, maybe. Clearly, I have a bias since I haven't mentioned anything of the arts. For the life of my, I cannot envision a heirarchical arrangement of art that would reveal increasing intelligence. Do you think I'm on the right track, here? Bot
|
|
#10
12-06-2005, 08:30 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I would have been more impressed had you begun your post by tapping out a few primes...
|
|
#11
12-06-2005, 08:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
4415615672529765927655645936268753895424038798775545433567809645476537659876875460788888675746653322 22112113111543265397609775874434342652387465900075442334113874987506083603. Bot
|
|
#12
12-06-2005, 08:37 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#14
12-06-2005, 08:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#15
12-07-2005, 08:34 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It just occured to me that another corallary to the recognition of intelligence is the Turing Test. Combining the Turing Test with recognizing alien intelligence might be an interesting excersize in specualtion.
In the Turing Test, most people concentrate questions that reveal some quirk of human behavioral psychology. The Turing Test would likely fail against an alien because of that. Human behavior would be alien to the alien, as it is to a machine. B
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
