If we examine the idea of intelligence for its philosophical grammar then it seems that the amoeba is as intelligent as the human.
Just as the human brain is not more intelligent than the human spleen, so the human spleen is not more intelligent than the human cell, and the human cell is not more intelligent than the amoeba. We are led to the odd conclusion that the amoeba is as intelligent as the human. But then each employs a unique set of skills. Each are fully embedded and competent within their particular environment. Environments are filled with unique, species-specific objects.
THERE IS NO PAN-SPECIES SCALE OF INTELLIGENCE.
Intelligence is not manifested by a species. There is no pan-species scale of intelligence because there are no pan-species environmental objects. Intelligence is manifested by individuals within a species as a variable. This is because only within the individuals of a species are there similar environmental objects to be found, and it is this similarity that allows a scalar, comparative, “intelligence”, scale to be introduced. The anthropomorphic pleasure of assuming that all animals are quasi-humans living in quasi-human environments within which they can be comparatively assessed for intelligence is a persistent, regrettable, hominid brag.
THERE CAN BE NO ADVANCEMENT OF HUMAN INTELLIGENCE.
An advancement of our species intelligence doesn’t describe an advance in intelligence. It describes a new environment populated with new objects, and hence describes a new species. Advancing the intelligence of our species means its annhilation and replacement by something other; and that is a warning to us all.
Posted by John Jones at 11:06
There are levels of intelligence. An inanimate object is not intelligent. A plant has intelligence because it is alive and not dead. It has what we call life. We can call the plant level m + x it is able to extract nourishment from its environment, grow and reproduce itself. It is a jump from a level of being.
From plant to animal is another jump in the level of being a simular addition of powers which enable the animal to do things that are totally outside the range of possibilities of the typical abilities of a plant. We can refer to them by the letter y, this power we shall call consciousness. If a plant is m+x then the animal can be described as m+x+y, again we say that y is something new and additional when compared with the level of plant.
When moving from animal to the human level, who would seriously deny the addition again of new powers? What precisely they are is a matter of controversy but the fact that man is able to do things which lie outside the ability and range of possibilities of even the most highly developed animals cannot be disbuted and has never been denied.
Man has the powers of life like the plant powers of consciousness like the animal and evidently something more: the mysterious power of z. This power of z has undoubtedly a great deal to do with the fact that man is not only able to think but is also able to be aware of its thinking. Consciousnes and intelligence as it were, recoil upon themselves. A thinker capable of watching and studying its own thinking. It opens the possibility of purposful learning, investigating exploring, and forulating and accumulating knowledge. What shall we call it? Self awareness? We can at least call it z , so, man be written m+x+y+z
Should we regognieze these levels of being as levels of intelligence?
But how do you know that any particular “object” is inanimate? How do you decide that?
Also, is there a clear distinction being made between consciousness and intelligence? Can you have consciousness without intelligence, or vice versa? And last, is intelligence actually measurable? How do you know that what are thought of as discrete units by which to measure intelligence aren’t an illusion by way of attempting to break up something that is essentially whole?
I would say, with the way we are using the term ‘intelligence‘ that it presupposes consciousness. Here, I don’t know, consciousness would probably have to include some form of conditioned reactions either reflexive or something in the manner of the ability to recall memory. We humans, having a greater capacity for memory and the modification and manipulation of it most likely are prone to go beyond our limitations. How these limitations are construed and where they apply is a round about attempt of protecting our preoccupation with feeding and expanding the knowledge.
(edit) Knowing our limitations is the intelligence.
I am making a distinction; I am placing significance of that which we call life. I guess the ability to place significance on something tells you at what level of existence or being or intelligence if you will of the knower. Of course one needs an organ to know anything about the world around them. This is what you would call the law of adaequatio. The knower must be adequate to the thing to be known.
It all depends on what significance you place on consciousness and self awareness or other metaphysical forces.
Ahh yes, knowing your limitations. A human being can indeed strain and stretch toward the higher and induce a process of growth through awe, wonder, admiration and imitation and expand its level of undestanding. Here is what I mean by level of signicance to which an observer or investigator tries to attune himself: it is chosen not by his intelligence but by his faith.
I agree that intelligence does seem to presuppose consciousness. Does consciousness then presuppose intelligence? How do we define intelligence distinct from consciousness? In this mechanistic society, we do this through IQ tests or other forms of testing, thereby dividing consciousness up into discrete parts or units that are somehow testable in order to derive a measurement of intelligence. But that is a posteriori factoring in order to provide a definition, which seems backwards to me. So I still must ask, exactly what IS intelligence?
good question… could this be another one of those contextual things? There are different levels and dimensions and directions of thought. Intellectual prowess is involved in some , whereas experiential essence is in others. One can be supported by so call intelligent scientific means and the other never can be.
There is an extraordinary intelligent functioning of the human organism, but thought can never experience that. It can only give definitions. Knowledge can be used to describe the innate intelligence of the life of the body, but can never capture the flow of life, nor the intelligence that correlates with it.
Here is where your limitations lie: By reducing consciouness down to discrete parts and treating it like a machine you fail to understand the person as a whole. One can chose to place significance on qualitive and higher things even though you cannot measure them, for what truely counts cannot be counted, and, that our sense organs are not sufficeint for insight and undrstanding at a level above that of matter.
That which is adequate to the thing to be known by the knower And, what level of significance one places on forces of life, consciousness, love and selfawareness. So, one has to stretch his imagination and take a leap of faith when considering forces we cannot measure or create. We can only really understand that which we can create with matter, life and intelligence require our faith.
Well, the ability to live cannot exist without one also being lived, to know this is intelligence restored and called wisdom. To set oneself apart of natures processes, and destroying that which we depend is a collapse of intelligence. That is the question though: can we use our innate abilities to communicate think and create our way towards continuation or towards our demise? That would be a measure of intelligence.
Intelligence isn’t manifested by any species or any type of object, whether animate or inanimate. It is relative and inter-individual.
Intelligence is not absolute - it does not start at zero and ascend. It is a relative, inter-individual, term that describes a person’s capacity to work or fit in with the environment associated with his/her species or “type” of object. So, for example, intelligence tests present us with objects that are specific to the human environment, such as letters, numbers, and cultural habits and mores. This “capacity” that establishes IQ and establishes how we fit into our environment is itself a moral, value-laden judgement, and because of that, IQ has no re-identifiable points on its scale - it is not absolute.
Intelligence has nothing to do with consciousness; it’s all the same to establishing a human scale of intelligence whether or how the human or even the stone or the amoeba is conscious or not. The amoeba’s “inner” life might be a blaze of light, it wouldn’t matter, and it wouldn’t be any of our business if it was like that.
It seems we have different definitions for intelligence and what I would call information. Unless there is life, consciousness there is no information. When a plant dies it has lost its life; its informational connection. Even the stone is being informed by the rain and river you say. Over time the wind informs the mountain to dust. This could be considered information but its not even information its really just noise untill someone pays attention to it and then it becomes information. Intelligence is simply the point at which noise becomes information.
I sense a reference to conditioning here. Conditioning is intelligence; it is the ability to respond adequately to our environment. It is in no way related to our fantasies, ideations and mentations.
you cant disect something and still consider it that thing. a human is more intelligent than a human spleen. a human is more intelligent than an amoeba
there could be a pan-species scale of intelligence (adaptability, putting them in unfamiliar environments and seeing how they adapt…etc) and humans would undoubtedly be at the top
… but when man thinks he has a grander purpose in this world than all other species and that he can use what nature has taken so long to create for his own purposes, that’s where the problems start