On Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:09:34 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 26 Nov 2014, at 20:23, John Clark wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 , Bruno Marchal <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > I agree that consciousness is not intelligence. >> > > I agree also. > > > OK. > > > > An entity can be competent, without intelligence [...] An entity can be >> intelligent, without competence >> > > I don't understand the distinction, but I do know that competence means > having the skill and knowledge to get the job done, so what's the point of > "intelligence"? As far as survival is concerned (and getting genes into the > next generation is the only thing Evolution is concerned with) > Intelligence, whatever you mean by the word, would be as useless as > consciousness. So now you've doubled the number of mysteries you need to > explain, not only do you need to explain why Evolution invented > consciousness you can't even explain why it invented Intelligence. > > > You can think of intelligence like a potential, and competence like a > force. Competence would be like the derivative of intelligence. Of course > this is just an image. The idea is that intelligence is what allow > competence to be developed. >
There's significant decoupling between these concepts. Most of the other working concepts in cognition are probably situated between these two :O) Being competent is being fit for purpose....more at the task end of things. Obviously if you want to be a competent brain surgeon or astronaut I.Q. starts to come into its 15 minutes. I felt duty bound to science to support I.Q. science for years basically. Make it sound like a sacrifice because in some ways that's what it is. People obey political correctness over science. Like here....big debate about intelligence with lots of fragrance burning on the stick. That people hold their strong view as rational men of science. But actually people pretend science doesn't exist, and there isn't a science of intelligence. Not principle most cases, but fear. People know it's policed. They feel saying something in public could do them harm down the line. So they deny science. Just sayin'. But that having been said. I have recently discovered a fatal flaw in I.Q. science. Fatal. It's a remarkable thing actually......this particular kind of flaw. It's alive almost. Well, obviously not alive.....but it behaves like it is alive. It will hide in the details and deploy misdirection. It will frame the good guy, and be like the darling of I.Q. those little whores of mensa (woody allen short story). Harden 'g', make it fit all the studies, correlate through multidimensional physical marker solidly invariant as a block. Yeah....straight up my dead parrot as my witness may the devil strike me dead. It's wot I saw...wriggling it was. Slithering. Look there I say. Look there if conscious intent what be seek..ing...ed...is you > > > > I insist also to distinguish intelligence from competence. >> > > Then please do so. I'm all ears. > > > I have taught mathematics to mentally handicapped persons. Most look like > they were very dumb, and most did not have any competence in mathematics. > By being very patient, and by letting them use computer (which were very > new at that time), I was able to trig some motivation and interest among > some of them, and realized that those were intelligent, and than the lack > of competence came from their handicap. > > I tend to think that intelligence is a natural attribute of universal > machine. They can, in principle, learn everything learnable. But to develop > a competence, which is more like a manifested intelligence, they need > enough memories, and some training or programming. > > Sometimes I go farer, and define intelligence negatively: an entity is > intelligent if it does not utter stupidities. This is a *very* large > definition which makes pebbles intelligent (no one has ever heard a pebble > saying a stupidity), but the pebbles is obviously incompetent (except in > finding the shortest path to the ground when being dropped). > > In all case the basic idea is that competence is an ability to solve > problem in some domain, and intelligence is the ability to develop that > competence. An old researcher can be very competent in his domain, but can > lack intelligence, as no more being able to augment its competence, or to > develop a new one. > > Bruno > > > > > John K Clark > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:>. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
