/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11142767]

Why do people claim intelligence is impossible to define? Can't it be defined as the ability to use your knowledge and skills to solve problems?

[Anonymous No.11142791]

>>11142767
But there are many people who are considered smart but couldn't solve the simple benis in vagoo problem.

[Anonymous No.11142803]

>>11142791
that has nothing to do with intelligence but circumstances of birth. most overrated problem there is.
t. solved that problem about dozen times

[Anonymous No.11142804]

>>11142767
The problem is semantics. As intelligence does not have agreed upon term when it comes to the intersection of defining it between humans and AI. With animals becomes much easier as you can judge intelligence by cognitive test. But it doesn't really give a full measure of what a animal may be thinking. You're measuring how well it performs on certain tasks.
so measuring performance and certain tasks can be a measure of some sort but is it a total measurement of intelligence? The same reason intelligence tests have been scrutinized because all you're doing is measuring how well people can perform specific tasks in these problem-solving questions.
It's a tough question anon because I don't think people have actually figured it out for humans themselves.

[Anonymous No.11142818]

>>11142804
i'd say AI will help us to define it. at this stage AI does pattern recognition and model learning. it is up to the stage of information learning from signals and data. knowledge understanding and application might require a conscious agent and AI is getting there at which point it will be synthetic intelligence.

[Anonymous No.11142822]

>>11142818
I think the best explanation will come as a result of seeing intelligences type of patterning. If so then a I should eventually reach a point where it can develop its own pattern.
Sort of like a Natural Evolution born from chaos that builds upon itself until order is manifest.

[好好好好好好好好 No.11142833]

Intelligence concerns a really broad spectrum of abilities. Putting all of them together is a little bit meaningless.

[Anonymous No.11142836]

>What is ability?
>What is knowledge?
>What is skill?
>What is problem?

[Anonymous No.11142839]

>>11142767
>Why do people claim intelligence is impossible to define?
We live in the Deconstructionist era. There will always be a professor somewhere, who is taken seriously simply because of their "credentials" in western science dogma, who will step in to lazily deconstruct why an objective fact is "actually" racist, or sexist, or somethingist. Western science dogmatics will then nod their heads respectfully and clap, lest they be called a racist or sexist.

[Anonymous No.11142843]

>>11142767
it can

[Anonymous No.11142845]

>>11142839
and my point in this above post is supported by this earlier post by another anon
>>11142804
>the problem is semantics
In the Deconstructionist era, objectivism is a sin.

[Anonymous No.11142847]

>>11142822
i think i have an idea at what you're getting at but you might want to use a different word than patterning, might be confused with clustering algorithms which find patterns in data. i think op nailed it with knowledge. in the sense that knowledge which made up of information which is made up of data which is made up of signals (datapoints). i think once we break the knowledge barrier we got synthetic intelligence. and as far as humans are concerned we experience knowledge which is why i say the conscious agent might be necessary. but even that is reducible to mathematical manipulation.
http://cognitive-ai.com/publications/assets/Draft-MicroPsi-JBach-07-03-30.pdf

[Anonymous No.11142896]

>>11142836

what is what?

[Anonymous No.11142899]

>>11142836

what is is?
what is ?

[Anonymous No.11142903]

>>11142836

what is > ?

[Anonymous No.11142911]

>>11142767
That makes you a racist if you define it as such. Because the definition could be used as metric to differentiate people of different races.

[Anonymous No.11142915]

>>11142833

the big discovery in intelligence research is that a broad spectrum of abilities are all correlated to a single factor called g, this g-factor can be called intelligence

[Anonymous No.11142919]

>>11142847
Yeah I get what you're saying. that's why I'm concerned about the language that we use changing with time as we discuss these topics. As >>11142845
Points out about deconstructionism. The truth is that we don't share a common understanding Behind these terms and that is adding confusion to the discussion of intelligence.

[Anonymous No.11142921]

>>11142911

it's mainly used to differentiate abilities between individuals, but liberals only seize on the racial average aspect

[Anonymous No.11142931]

>>11142767
Its triggers brainlets thats why, we already know anyone extremely good at abstract math is a genius.

[Anonymous No.11142980]

>>11142767
It's obvious what intelligence is, everyone knows what intelligence is. People just don't like it, that's it, it's not a logical argument, it's an emotional one.

Intelligence is very important, and it's also incredibly shitty because if you don't have it you're objectively in a worse place than someone who does have it, so people like to deny it, it helps them sleep better at night

[Anonymous No.11142987]

>>11142767
IMO just judge it like you'd judge a computer

>How good is this persons short term memory?
>What does this person know?
>How good are they at solving problems?
>What functions can they perform?
>How efficient are they at intelligent work?

[Anonymous No.11143012]

I don't think anyone says that. I think they say it's impossible (or difficult) to quantify, which is true

[Anonymous No.11143091]

>>11142767
A workable definition of intelligence:'
-ability to make money, preferably without another persons ability to do so

Survival is the only test of someones ability, and the thing that you call intelligence doesn't help you to survive, then it's not useful.

And money is the only thing you can measure success.

[Anonymous No.11143173]

>>11142767
Here's what I believe intelligence to be

>the ability to process information according to a set of rules
>those set of rules are a result of organized physical matter that can take some input and generate an output

This belief is predicated by my own belief of determinism. Our self awareness has to be a result of physical phenomena, and with this we can conclude that any physical matter has the capability of self aware - all it needs to be is structured similarly to us. Self awareness is a type of intelligence, and it arises from a specific physical structure, albeit a complex one.

To summarize, it's our universe that has the inherent capability of being intelligent. Intelligence can manifest as self awareness if it is structured in a particular manner. I.E computers are a form of intelligence. Your computer "observes" of the inputs that it receives the same way you do - the only difference between humans is that humans have the physical structures necessary for meta-awareness.

>>11142847
has it right

To all the other anons arguing about how to measure intelligence, that's a solved problem.
>IQ

[Anonymous No.11143188]

Same reason people say money doesn't buy happiness. It just makes them feel better about their situation.

Some people will certainly find happiness if they found riches - other won't.

Is an incredible artist considered itelligent? The amount of attention to small detail and the ability to create ultra realistic paintings/drawing from purely visualisation certainly sounds intelligent to me. I know somebody who has this ability but didn't do well at school and was terrible at math and science.

[Anonymous No.11143807]

to think that there was once no life, and then there was intelligence, makes ya wonder.
cuz if there was intelligence before life then it appears to be immaterial, which is hard for us material world experiencers to comprehend

[Anonymous No.11145471]

>>11142767
The "cause of" Intelligence can't be named, but it sure rhythms with pattern making.