http://www.bigthink.com/adobe/Logo_250X250.jpg http://www.bigthink.com/adobe/Background_1024X576.jpg http://www.bigthink.com/adobe/Banner_686X60.jpg http://www.bigthink.com/adobe/Half-Banner_234X60.jpg http://www.bigthink.com/adobe/Logo_250X250 http://www.bigthink.com/adobe/Logo-Watermark_250X250.jpg http://www.bigthink.com/adobe/Background_1024X576.jpg http://www.bigthink.com/adobe/Half-Banner-ALT_234X60.jpg Bigthink http://www.bigthink.com/feed/rss/comment/idea/5672 Mon, 08 Sep 2008 09:49:29 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.2 http://www.bigthink.com/wisdom/5672 If by "evidence to the contrary" you mean the fact that humans do not consistently exercise wisdom, I wouldn't call that lack of intelligence, I would call it lack of discipline. If a weight-lifter drops a weight on his foot, it doesn't mean he isn't strong, it means that he didn't apply his training correctly (in other words, lack of discipline). The problem with human intelligence is that it is entwined with other, more primitive traits that we haven't outgrown. Violence, greed, territoriality, etcetera, cause us to react to circumstances in a visceral, reflexive way that bypasses reason. If we look past the tendency to act on emotion, humans have more advanced problem-solving skills than any other species we have observed. Of course, I am writing under the assumption that intelligence is the ability to solve problems and adapt to circumstances. If you are assuming that self-destructive (or socially destructive or environmentally destructive) behavior is anti-intelligence, it would seem that you are ignoring the constructive side of human behavior---things such as creativity and imagination, which computers have yet to emulate. It's all in your frame of reference, the aspects of behavior on which you choose to focus. Bigthink Sun, 24 Feb 2008 07:59:48 +0100 http://www.bigthink.com/wisdom/5672/#9544 http://www.bigthink.com/wisdom/5672 I would encourage anyone interested in the subject of intelligence, or "mind", to read the book, "Kinds Of Minds"(can't recall the author: my copy is currently on loan to a friend). This book discusses various types of minds, and tries to provide criteria for determining when organisms become sufficiently complex to be credited with "thinking" and having "minds". The book posits that simple organisms are robotic in nature, and perform specialized activities in response to environment/survival. My own suspicion, after reading the book, is that humans may indeed be nothing more than very complex robots. This argument lends itself to Walden's observation about chess-playing robots. Which would explain why, despite the human capacity to think, plan, etc, we still have such a difficult time managing a compatible existence with our environment. In short, it may be time to re-evaluate the meaning of "human". Bigthink Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:27:31 +0100 http://www.bigthink.com/wisdom/5672/#5916 http://www.bigthink.com/wisdom/5672 The application of knowledge reflects intelligence only when it is applied in a constructive, practical or positive endeavor. Bigthink Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:07:57 +0100 http://www.bigthink.com/wisdom/5672/#5910 http://www.bigthink.com/wisdom/5672 You would all agree that Intelligence is not that amount of knowledge you HOARD, but Intelligence does come from the amount of knowledge you APPLY. Bigthink Wed, 23 Jan 2008 02:42:58 +0100 http://www.bigthink.com/wisdom/5672/#5443 http://www.bigthink.com/wisdom/5672 Intelligence could easily be quantified by the number of calculations a brain or computer can do per second. We have already proved that chess, once thought of as a strictly human endeavor, can be played better by machines. Why then can't computers be better at international diplomacy, leadership, or love? Bigthink Mon, 21 Jan 2008 07:41:25 +0100 http://www.bigthink.com/wisdom/5672/#4629