Comments on: Intelligence

By: Religion: Parasitic Meme or Helpful Adaptation? | Philosophy for Real Life

Religion: Parasitic Meme or Helpful Adaptation? | Philosophy for Real Life — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 12:58:52 +0000

[...] one such atheist, believes it had to do with an extension of our species’ aptitude for theory of mind, the ability to attribute mental states like our own to others. Humans have such an advanced [...]

By: Stephen Fretwell

Stephen Fretwell — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:33:24 +0000

Excellent analysis. It provides the background contrast for the comparative study of madness and self-deceptive dishonesty. The former is illuminated by the recent studies in parasitic manipulation of hosts by behavioral modification (for example, the zombie ants, or the classic “mad” or rabid mammal), The second by Trivers’ recent book on Fools and their Folly. By clarifying the worthy goal of actually being intelligent, the philosophical study of applied epistemology, by which madness and self-deceptive issues are hopefully corrected, is elevated in interest.

By: Fellow Primates – 1 | Philosophy for Real Life

Fellow Primates – 1 | Philosophy for Real Life — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 02:02:04 +0000

[...] Last time I made some remarks about chimps and bonobos. That’s because if you want to master your life, it helps to know your material. Think of yourself as an artist or a designer or a builder whose goal is to make of your life something both highly functional and aesthetically pleasing. You need to know what you have to work with. A good place for us to start is by comparing ourselves with our fellow hominins, the great apes, specifically chimpanzees and bonobos. These two form a sort of caricature in which we see aspects of ourselves in sharp relief, aspects which in some cases may give us cause for fear and in others may give us cause for hope. [...]

By: Parmenides

Parmenides — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 14:36:35 +0000

Good blog! I especially enjoyed the Shakespearean finish.

Minksky’s by-now-rather-old Societies of Mind might interest you, if you haven’t already read it. At the time it was negatively reviewed, but I read it cover-to-cover, used it for a textbook one semester when I taught AI, and translated many of its somewhat obscure English-language sections into Prolog code (none of which I retained) for my students. I’m sure some parts of it would fit nicely into your blog(s) on this subject.

By: Kelly Bradford

Kelly Bradford — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:33:09 +0000

Here is an example of the term ” intelligence” used in ( I think) a very different way: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8982310/Intelligent-slime-able-to-navigate-its-way-out-of-maze.html

By: philosophylive.com

philosophylive.com — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 16:42:57 +0000

There are a million ways to explore intelligence. Most of it done by people not very intelligent. So I appreciate a careful analysis. I think the Sapien versus Others debate is a good focus, though I think the gap between simple conceptions and complex conceptions is underrated. After all, perception is gathering this information and conception is manipulating it in all the ways you discuss. The intentional, goal-oriented way in which Sapiens manipulate it is so dramatically different than all the other animals that it warrants emphasis. It is also relevant to note that subjectivity is chaos without objectivity and it is this latter concept, the other, the object, that defines how successful our ‘intelligence’ can be. But either way, thanks for the article. NJ

By: Ways of Knowing | Philosophy for Real Life

Ways of Knowing | Philosophy for Real Life — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 13:12:23 +0000

[...] be continued [...]