Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
If all definitions of intelligence end up with a judgment call, we might
as well throw away all of them and just say "Intelligence is what a
human would consider intelligent".
But, also, then
"Sexy is what a human would consider sexy"
Yet, intelligence and sexiness are not the same thing...
The formulation
"Intelligence, as assessed by humans, is: The ability to
achieve complex goals in complex environments, where
complexity is assessed by humans"
says more than
"Intelligence is what a human would consider intelligent"
even though both are subjective.
Objective definitions are not the only kind.
But of course, what you (and others) have offered is not a definition at
all, only a weak, question-begging partial description.
A partial description of something, which needs to be clarified by
further description as soon as it is pushed a little ... which then in
turn needs to be clarified further ... all the way up to the point where
the only thing to do is write an entire book on the subject, is no use
as a 'definition'.
What is a waste of time, however, is for someone to think that they have
made some progress by going from a partial description that is 8 words
long to a partial description that is 21 words long.
210,000 words, maybe (if it were coherent enough). But in the jump from
8 to 21 I see nothing but speculation.
And so saying, I will bid farewell to this frustratingly circular thread
and get back to my book.
Richard Loosemore
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
