Is 'Grouping' Intelligence Possible?

[Giantevilhead]

The OP also said this:

Further to this, I would like to generalize the question even more. I think one of the myriad reasons intelligence fascinates us is because it appears that an esoteric, abstract phenomena arises from a, albeit complex, material predicate.

Along these lines, I have been wondering whether intelligence itself belongs to a 'set' (in the mathematical sense) of other potential physical phenomena. I am interested in what form this 'set' would take along with the other 'members' of the grouping. Perhaps intelligence is one of many, seemingly 'abstract' phenomena which can arise from the complex organization of matter.

As for the definition of intelligence, a behaviorist would pretty much be fine with any definition so long as it describes observable and measurable phenomenons, provided of course the definition is standardized. Otherwise, they really don't care what behaviors and abilities you put under the label of intelligence, "a rose by any other name" and all that.

 

[Kherubin]

I was really using Hawkin's opinions as a springboard for a a far wider discussion.

In his book Hawkin's espoused his view on the material basis of 'Intelligence', to use his terminology. I am interested in whether others think that this is the only form that said, 'emergent' property can take.

Further to this, I wonder if others have examples, opinions or baseless musings on 'emergent' properties beyond this one.

I think what youre asking is, are different 'flavors' of mind possible.

Is our consciousness uniquely human, or is it sort of a generic form of consciousness that any sufficiently sophisticated brain anywhere would experience, even if it evolved on another planet and its biology was unimaginably different from ours?

Do differently evolved brains produce different sorts of consciousness, or what you could call different subjective realities?

Humans happen to use adaptive reasoning and language to do this, but I suppose it's conceivable that some other animal or lifeform could use other means, like telekinesis and genetic memory or perhaps something like an independent carrier of personality that latches onto one body at a time but does not die, like reincarnation without the spiritualism, basically the premise of movies about alien parasites that take over our brains.

These are the sort of questions/possibilities I was considering.

Thanks,
Kherubin

 

[apeiron]

Different flavours is a good way of putting it. It is pretty obvious that the sonar-based perceptual world of the dolphin or bat is going to be a rather different kind of mind. And so the inner experience of a chimpanzee compared to the language-structured mind of a human. Or the collective group mind of an ant colony compared to clever invertebrate like an octopus. There is plenty of variety around us.

What this should tell you is that the notion of consciousness/intelligence as some emergent property that pops out is very misleading. Different flavours of experience would be due to different neurobiological detail, different sensory modalities, different structuring social worlds. So it is in fact very easy for the "ethereal" aspects of mindfulness to come in different flavours. They would vary along with the structures involved. Intelligence/consciousness is not an emergent property like liquidity or tensegrity which is always essentially the same despite being composed of very different kinds of substance. It will be as varied as the structures involved.

This is why an intelligent definition of what we are talking about will invoke a structure. Some functional or process description that would be emboddied as a general architecture.

You must have been persuaded by Hawkins to have cited him. Otherwise that was a pretty random and misleading way of starting a thread. But anyway, that is why a good generic description of intelligence/mind looks like "future-modelling", and that in turn is generally emboddied as "spatiotemporal hierarchy". You need a system where global ideas and memories are the context that frame local impressions or current experience. A constraints-based approach to processing the world.

 

[Giantevilhead]

But that means you can boil "intelligence" down to simply an ability to perceive and react to differences or relationships between stimuli or situations. Everything else can be built on top of that.

 

[apeiron]

But that means you can boil "intelligence" down to simply an ability to perceive and react to differences or relationships between stimuli or situations. Everything else can be built on top of that.

Be my guest, demonstrate that you can do this.

Do you not see the difference between atoms and systems?

You can boil a human down to a collection of constituent elements in a test-tube - so much carbon, so much nitrogen, etc. But this exact isomerism does not give you a model of the phenomenon you seek to model.

Behaviourism was an impoverished discourse of this nature. It was an exercise in scientism rather than science. Conditioning is a good way of thinking about reflexes, yes, but a bad way of thinking about something more complex like intelligence or sentience.

 

[Giantevilhead]

It's a matter of the refinement of those perceptions and reactions. For example, compare the difference between a novice basketball player and a professional basketball player. The novice has trouble perceiving the relationship between the movements he makes when he throws the basketball and the trajectory of the ball. The professional on the other hand, is much more aware of how minute movements can affect the ball's trajectory. The professional basketball player can then be said to be more "athletically intelligent" or "kinesthetically intelligent" than the novice.

As for behaviorism, this isn't the 50's anymore. Skinner is not Watson. Operant conditioning is the selection of behaviors based on their consequences.

 

[apeiron]

It's a matter of the refinement of those perceptions and reactions. For example, compare the difference between a novice basketball player and a professional basketball player. The novice has trouble perceiving the relationship between the movements he makes when he throws the basketball and the trajectory of the ball. The professional on the other hand, is much more aware of how minute movements can affect the ball's trajectory. The professional basketball player can then be said to be more "athletically intelligent" or "kinesthetically intelligent" than the novice.

Actually, the key difference between novice and expert athletes is anticipation. The studies on this are a major piece of evidence I usually cite in support of the view that the brain is an anticipation machine.

Experts are better at reading their opponent's body language or flight of the ball - see it coming earlier, more accurately, on less information.

Yes, there is a genetic variability in motor integration, etc. Many elements make up the package which means some people have better co-ordination, or more will to win, or suitable body shape, etc.

But the key thing that individuals learn to become actually good at is reading the game.

So I see your argument. We can reduce smart things to collections of dumb things. For instance, jocks are just good in doing dumb, reflexive, sensorimotor integration. They have a quicker eye, a faster hand.

But actually get jocks into the lab and it turns out that their intelligence is again an example of that generic explanation - brains are shaped by the purpose of future-modelling.

As for behaviorism, this isn't the 50's anymore. Skinner is not Watson. Operant conditioning is the selection of behaviors based on their consequences.

Jeez, its not the 1970s anymore either. I was there when operant conditioning was going out of fashion, and cogsci was the shiny new hope. Then came evopsych. Anglo-saxon psychology keeps striking out because it cannot break from the mental constipation of psychic atomism.

I accept that there is operant conditioning as a branch of theory perhaps useful for some kinds of therapy. There are a few tools which can be picked up in about a term, max. But as a philosophy of science - which is what we are talking about here - it is a relic. A holy one to some, but nevertheless...

 

[Giantevilhead]

Actually, the key difference between novice and expert athletes is anticipation. The studies on this are a major piece of evidence I usually cite in support of the view that the brain is an anticipation machine.

Experts are better at reading their opponent's body language or flight of the ball - see it coming earlier, more accurately, on less information.

Yes, there is a genetic variability in motor integration, etc. Many elements make up the package which means some people have better co-ordination, or more will to win, or suitable body shape, etc.

But the key thing that individuals learn to become actually good at is reading the game.

So I see your argument. We can reduce smart things to collections of dumb things. For instance, jocks are just good in doing dumb, reflexive, sensorimotor integration. They have a quicker eye, a faster hand.

But actually get jocks into the lab and it turns out that their intelligence is again an example of that generic explanation - brains are shaped by the purpose of future-modelling.

But the brain's ability to model the future is based on what has happened in the past. If behaving in a certain way in the presence of a specific stimulus has always produced some kind of reinforcement in the past then the probability of behaving the same way in the presence of that stimulus in the future will be high.

Few experts are born with the ability to read their opponent's body language or the trajectory of the ball.

There's a procedure called errorless discrimination training in conditioning. Basically, the goal is to have the subject respond in a certain way, like pressing a button or a lever, to a very specific stimulus, say a 400nm wavelength light. You start by showing the 400nm light and then reinforce the subject for responding to the light. Then you introduce another stimulus, say a 500nm wavelength light and you do not reinforce the subject for responding to it. Then you present the two stimuli in random order, you reinforce for responding to the right stimulus and do not reward for responding to the wrong stimulus. After a while, the subject will only respond to the correct stimulus. When that happens, you move the second stimulus closer and closer to the stimulus you want the subject to respond to. So you go from 500nm to say 490nm, then to 480nm, 470nm, and you continue the procedure until you get extremely close, to the minimum difference the subject can discriminate between. A person who goes through this kind of training can discriminate between minute differences in color. Can you see how this kind of procedure or similar procedures can be generalized to explain other behaviors? You can use a similar procedure to teach people to read body language. You reinforce them for responding to a specific facial expression and do not reinforce them for responding to a different facial expression and you gradually make the second facial expression to be more and more like the first facial expression. You can also impose a time limit to teach the subject to make faster discriminations.

 

[apeiron]

Can you see how this kind of procedure or similar procedures can be generalized to explain other behaviors? You can use a similar procedure to teach people to read body language. You reinforce them for responding to a specific facial expression and do not reinforce them for responding to a different facial expression and you gradually make the second facial expression to be more and more like the first facial expression. You can also impose a time limit to teach the subject to make faster discriminations.

If you go speak to sports psychologists, you will hear about the importance of ecological validity and holistic learning in acquiring anticipatory skill. That is unless they are only interested in your cash and want to flog you gimmicky training aids.

You automatically think an atomistic approach is what would work. The real world has found the opposite.

 

[Giantevilhead]

If you go speak to sports psychologists, you will hear about the importance of ecological validity and holistic learning in acquiring anticipatory skill. That is unless they are only interested in your cash and want to flog you gimmicky training aids.

You automatically think an atomistic approach is what would work. The real world has found the opposite.

But the behaviorist approach is not atomistic, it's mechanistic.

Behaviorists use an atomistic approach when trying to condition very specific behaviors with specific stimuli. When behaviorism is applied in education or therapy, they deal more with stimulus and response classes.

 

[apeiron]

But the behaviorist approach is not atomistic, it's mechanistic.

Sigh. Same thing. It is all about a reduction to efficient causes. Newton, inspired by the recent rediscovery of Atomist texts atomised dynamics to create his mechanics. Reductionism is atomism, mechanicalism, locality, determinism, monadism - the whole package.

 

[Kherubin]

Different flavours is a good way of putting it. It is pretty obvious that the sonar-based perceptual world of the dolphin or bat is going to be a rather different kind of mind. And so the inner experience of a chimpanzee compared to the language-structured mind of a human. Or the collective group mind of an ant colony compared to clever invertebrate like an octopus. There is plenty of variety around us.

This is a very fair point. It's clear that the particular kind of 'intelligence/sentience' perceived will depend on the underlying structure of the brain and the available sensory modalities. I suppose my question was, however, more generalised than this. I was asking how far we can 'cast the net'. As a consequence, it is a little more tenuous and relies more on imagination than experience.

This is why an intelligent definition of what we are talking about will invoke a structure.

You must have been persuaded by Hawkins to have cited him. Otherwise that was a pretty random and misleading way of starting a thread.

I was very persuaded by Hawkins. Indeed, I think his view and the similar views of other offer a very potent basis for the future generation of general A.I.

Actually, I asked him a similar question to the OP and he was kind enough to reply, here is his response:

As to your second question, I define intelligence as the ability to build a model of the underlying causes in sensory data and from that do inference and make predictions. We believe we understand in detail how neurons do this. I believe the basics of these algorithms are essential, there are no others. However, they can be implemented on different substrates.

I then suggested that our intelligence may be like our biochemistry, in as much as, on a universal scale, we lie at the peak of the Bell Curve; we probably have the most common variety of biochemistry (and 'Intelligence'), but other 'flavors' are possible.

Unfortunately, I think he is a very busy man and didn't want to enter into a long, drawn-out conversation with someone whose ideas are as 'out there' as mine, so I received no reply. That's why I came to you!

Thanks,
Kherubin

 

[Giantevilhead]

Sigh. Same thing. It is all about a reduction to efficient causes. Newton, inspired by the recent rediscovery of Atomist texts atomised dynamics to create his mechanics. Reductionism is atomism, mechanicalism, locality, determinism, monadism - the whole package.

Well, it works well when used to teach developmentally challenged children.

I can understand why people would think that behaviorism is too simplistic but I doubt that they've ever gotten a chance to see how applied behavior analysis can help developmentally challenged children learn complex behaviors and improve their overall functioning.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/120/5/1162.full I'd say that it's reasonable to apply behaviorist theories to the concept of "intelligence."

 

[-Job-]

I instinctively associate intelligence with understanding. Naturally intelligence may be used in different contexts, but "kinesthetic intelligence" is really stretching the usage of the term, in my opinion.

I would add also that the brain is an anticipation machine as much as a computer is a machine for carrying out arithmetic operations. In a sense, it may have been built with that purpose in mind, but it's much more than that.

 

[kings7]

Somebody mentioned that intelligence is so murky a concept that psychologists don't even have a concrete theory to start from, which is not true. (See below)

http://www.iapsych.com/CHCPP/CHCPP.html


Also, one has to realize that the brain is a parallel processor; it is more akin to a quantum computer than a standard "on/off" computer. This makes intelligence very difficult to define because it can't be distilled down to a set of axioms that are either fulfilled or unfulfilled. In other words, there is no real "starting point" that we can use.


Finally... intelligence is not an object. It is a concept. Furthermore, it is a concept defined only when it exists in tandem with a particular context. A characteristic (not definition) of intelligence that many people forget is this: Intelligence is contextually based upon environment, genetics, situational circumstances, people, and culture.

 

[kings7]

I instinctively associate intelligence with understanding. Naturally intelligence may be used in different contexts, but "kinesthetic intelligence" is really stretching the usage of the term, in my opinion.

I would add also that the brain is an anticipation machine as much as a computer is a machine for carrying out arithmetic operations. In a sense, it may have been built with that purpose in mind, but it's much more than that.

Kinesthetic intelligence is an abuse of terminology. I know that you didn't make it up, but I wish people would stop using it. There is a part of intelligence that relates to reaction time, cognitive processing speed, and cognitive accuracy. These are more a part of the "kinesthetic intelligence" than the physical movement itself (which is, at its most basic level, not difficult. It only becomes difficult when conflated with complicated timing/processing variables).

Unfortunately, I'm in mathematics and music, not psychology, so no one takes me seriously :P. However, I think that a more useful model for kinesthetic intelligence would be something called 'chronometric intelligence'. If anyone is interested I can explain it in detail, but it basically just has to do with the ability to have a high processing speed, high accuracy, and a "good sense of timing/rhythm/sequence". (The phrase in quotes can be more specifically defined, but only at length which I will refrain from here). Chronometric intelligence applies to a lot of areas of life that people don't realizes (driving, cooking, ordering events correctly, making decisions under pressure, specialized occupations such as a being a pilot, reacting to unforeseen consequences, etc.).

 

[Math Is Hard]

Chronometric intelligence applies to a lot of areas of life that people don't realizes (driving, cooking, ordering events correctly, making decisions under pressure, specialized occupations such as a being a pilot, reacting to unforeseen consequences, etc.).

You could probably define that as procedural memory ability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_memory

 

[kings7]

You could probably define that as procedural memory ability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_memory

Good point.

The only thing is that it doesn't account for timing displacement, but the definition of procedural memory could surely be expanded to include this. All we need now are some new fMRI studies and peer-reviewed neuroscience classifications! ;)