1

For over twenty years now I've been mulling over the following problem: how do you broadly define/measure intelligence? Probably someone has already said that (or come to the same conclusion) but here's how I see it. Intelligence can be measured as the level of abstractions that a certain entity can operate with. The most primitive life forms, e.g. bacteria just have raw inputs and reactions. Zero abstractions. As you move up along the intelligence ladder you'll find that more intelligent organisms can operate with more and more abstract (laden) concepts/ideas. This is true of humans as well.

Now this conclusion/hypothesis doesn't answer the question whether something is intelligent or not but it looks to me that anything that can respond to stimuli and change its reaction to the same stimuli over time can be considered intelligent.

This is not a question/problem per se, I'm looking forward to your opinions about this hypothesis.

Improve this question
8
  • 1
    Alright, the topic is certainly welcome and encouraged in this forum, but the forum (seemingly half-heartedly sometimes) tries to enforce a scope of inquiry to specific technical questions about philosophy as opposed to broad "What do you think?" questions. There's a FAQ in meta which does a mediocre job of making the case of why that's important. An alternative is ask this same question on The Philosophy Forum where this sort of question thrives.
    – J D
    Commented Sep 25, 2023 at 13:57
  • 1
    I would say that the attempt to define intelligence is addressed nicely in Martin Gardner's book on Multiple Intelligence theory, and he lays out the two broadly construed definitions of a intelligence as a term being applied to a single factor, as is in the case of the G factor and a broader, pluralist notion as he advocates in his MI theory. Reading a little on cognitive ethology is also worthwhile if you're curious.
    – J D
    Commented Sep 25, 2023 at 14:01
  • 1
    "This is not a question/problem per se" Then this might not be a good site for this post.
    – tkruse
    Commented Sep 25, 2023 at 15:38
  • 2
    The measurement of intelligence (IQ tests) is part of psychology. You may consider posting this question on the Psychology SE
    – Idiosyncratic Soul
    Commented Sep 25, 2023 at 15:41
  • 1
    If you drop me in the middle of a forest with nothing but the clothing I am wearing and drop a squirrel next to me, the squirrel will find food and water before me and is far more likely to survive for 6 months. That makes me less intelligent than a squirrel in this context.
    – Idiosyncratic Soul
    Commented Sep 25, 2023 at 17:27

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
0

In line with the idea that personal networks of involvements constitute reality, i.e. from SEP on Heidegger

(networks of involvements, what Heidegger sometimes calls Reality)

Amongst other things, these networks involve the apprehended phenomena that an individual understands to be real and possible, so the reach of their analytical skills and imagination define their reality. That is one level of differentiation.

The level of furnishing of raw possibilities for apprehension is a more fundamental level for yet more differentiation. That is to say the sensory equipment before higher thought even has a chance to work with it. This translates to Heidegger's concept of being, Kant's gedankenlose Anschauung and Buddha's Nibbaana, as the ground state before thought operates. It seems straightforwardly obvious that this is different for the autistic savant, a neurotypical, a genius etc. So they are starting from different bases of being to begin with.

Then, even given basically the same foundation, experience and genetics are going to mean different analyses of what is considered real and the possible are going to produce different personal realities.

From various perspectives the results of these differentiations is going to appear as more or less intelligent. Not only is 'being' different for different folks but reality moreso. Intelligence seems rather perspectival. In the Chuang Tzu and Tao Te Ching it says "The greatest art is like stupidity." Nevertheless, amongst things equal, there seems to be an art for better quality that is more intelligent than less.

Improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .