FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Intelligence Classifications?





ocalhoun
Should we make a standardized set of classes of intelligence?
It could come in handy later for legal reasons (perhaps some of the higher levels included for being murder to kill, which may be important if AI really comes of age.)

The classifications I'm thinking of are:
Class 0: Inanimate objects and the simplest of life forms.
Examples: Hammer, rock, grain of sand, virus.
Class 0 intelligences are identified in that they can only passively respond to stimulus, and show no awareness of anything whatsoever.
Class 1: The simplest of intelligences.
Examples: Mechanical clock, grass, algae, some bacteria, coral
Class 1 intelligences are identified in that while they can actively respond to stimulus (such as a plant growing towards sunlight) the stimuli they can respond to are very limited.
Class 2: Decision makers.
Examples: Electronics (including all but the more advanced computers), Venus fly trap, some single-celled animals, oysters
Class 2 intelligences are identified in that they can respond to several different stimuli, and can do different things based on different combinations of these. The responses are pre-programed, though.
Class 3: Learners.
Examples: Computers capable of learning from experience, most animals
Class 3 intelligences are identified in that they can take previously learned information and apply it to new situations. They can be tested to be class 3 by seeing if it is possible to train them do do different things.
Class 4: Tool Users
Examples: Otters, chimps, dolphins, dogs, some parrots
Class 4 intelligences can use tools, or be trained to do so, if it is to their advantage.
Class 5: Meta-Tool Users
Examples: None
Class 5 intelligences can use tools to construct other tools. Until recently, humans were a class 5.
Class 6: Space-farers
Examples: Humans
Class 6 intelligences can travel in and through space, but not to other planets (moons don't count)
Class 7: Interplanetary
Examples: None yet, but humans are borderline.
Class 7 intelligences can travel between planets. Humans are a borderline 7, because we can send probes to other planets, but have not actually sent any of ourselves there.
Class 8: Interstellar
Examples: None known.
Class 8 intelligences have solved the problems of how to travel between stars.
Class 9: Intergalactic
Examples: None known.
Class 9 intelligences have solved the considerably harder problems of how to travel between galaxies.


This class system is designed so that it would be easy to place new species within the proper (or at least approximately proper) category. Classes 6,7,8, and 9 would be helpful in the event that humans become a class 8, and make contact with intelligent aliens.

This is very much an unfinished work, please suggest changes and improvements.
jwellsy
Distance issues/capabilities are within our grasp now.
The real leap forwards are when we learn to conqour time.
Our traditional methods of mastering distances have changed our perception of time.
Advances in using/managing time is required for interplanet travel.
Studies of time are the key to the future.
Soltair
I don't know... What criterion did you base yourself on to establish this scale? To what extent may space-travel between different stellar objects may be a sign of intelligence alone? I feel that there is a lack somewhere here, that you should add a few more conditions in order to be able to get into a new step.

What do you think?
gerpg
I think im somewhere between 0.5 and 1 in the classification's...

lol...

Louis.
KronikSindrome
it depends on how you define intelligence....

I know some very smart, knowledgable people - who have no common sense at all
and I know some very wise people, with a wealth of common knowledge, that aren't very book smart

I think knowledge and ability alone are not enough to consider one intelligent
knowledge is gained, wisdom is earned

but all that aside I like your scale Wink



mine would be like this:

0: a person who doesn't know much at all, is at about a 5 year old level

(these are the booger eaters, the put a can on your head and run into a wall people)


1: a person who knows enough to exist independantly, but not thrive in any way

(this would be those who just live, day in day out, do what they know to do, think
very minimaly, no interest in advancement just survival)


2: a person who can exist independantly but puts their very existance at risk

(this would be like, teenagers. People who put what's 'cool or fun' above what's
'smart or good for you', ya know, the ones who jump off the roof to win a free beer.
smart enough to know better too young to care)


3: a person who can exist, thrive, and advance. Has a wealth of knowledge,
and continues to learn but has no real concept of practical application

(these would be the people who like to learn, they feed on information information information!
they learn many things and can apply them to life situations to enhance their existance but have
no means of applying it to better themselves as an individual. ie: They can program a computer
but they have no idea what to do for a freind in need of emotional support)

4: a person who can exist, thrive, and advance. Posesses great wisdom but minimal knowledge

(these are the people who have been there done that, they can get through almost any life
related situation, they can give others great advice on how to cope or deal with different things.
They know how to survive and live 'well', a good quality of life, but they have no idea how to
make the VCR stop blinking 12:00)

5: aperson who can exist, thrive, advance, and enjoy!

(these are the people with the best of both worlds, they are smart enough to do most neccessary tasks in life and to figure out how to accomplish greater things that may not be neccessary but are none the less advantageous. They also have enough life experience to smoothly get through any situation in life as well as to help others. they know when to hold em and when to fold em. Passionate, Personable, Responsible, Reliable, Knowledgable and wise.)


okay...I know it's not very scientifical, or thourough, I kind of rushed through
this..but to me...these are MY definitions of intelligence on a scale from 1-5.....

what am I? I think I'm down there with the booger eaters and beer jumpers...heh Wink
SonLight
Up to meta-tool users, I find your classification reasonable and convenient. The issue of traveling in space could depend hugely on a new kind of intelligence, or not, depending on the means used. In my opinion, space travel is just another area of technology that we need time, and our existing level of intelligence, to excel at. However, until we actually reach the goals you have given, we cannot know what new abilities will be required to achieve them.
ocalhoun
KronikSindrome wrote:


okay...I know it's not very scientifical, or thourough, I kind of rushed through
this..but to me...these are MY definitions of intelligence on a scale from 1-5.....


I suppose your scale would range between 6.1 and 6.5 on mine, just adding in more detail...
Mine is designed to gauge the intelligence of species, while yours is for individuals.

SonLight wrote:
Up to meta-tool users, I find your classification reasonable and convenient. The issue of traveling in space could depend hugely on a new kind of intelligence, or not, depending on the means used. In my opinion, space travel is just another area of technology that we need time, and our existing level of intelligence, to excel at. However, until we actually reach the goals you have given, we cannot know what new abilities will be required to achieve them.


I am kind of iffy about the higher levels (and a couple of the lower ones). I'm just thinking of that as an easy way to classify a newly discovered species. I do see the point, though. What if they were far more intelligent than us, but saw no reason to go to distant stars?
EanofAthenasPrime
Up to class 5 it was good. I think what you are going for is not a "intelligience class" but more of a "evolutionary progress class", but a very narrow one at that. Maybe a "nomadic intellegience rating system?" Because the human mind hasn't really improved at all since 4000 years ago, there has been no natural selection to make it do so (there has been a Great Stupid people Massacre) so in other words
if Platos had been raised in modern times he might have easily constructed a space shuttle, so your method is not a measuring of intellegience it is just a narrow minded measuring of evolutionary progress (again there are unsolved mysteries like time travel and consciousness).
ocalhoun
^ So, perhaps better measurements of the higher intelligence classes would be things like:
6: Developed language with grammar (The meaning of a given group of vocalizations (or other communications) can be changed by the order in which they are given. for example: 'John gave Suzy some candy' means something other than 'Suzy gave some John candy'.)
7: Can define their own consciousnesses, and describe how their own minds work
...
EanofAthenasPrime
ocalhoun wrote:
^ So, perhaps better measurements of the higher intelligence classes would be things like:
6: Developed language with grammar (The meaning of a given group of vocalizations (or other communications) can be changed by the order in which they are given. for example: 'John gave Suzy some candy' means something other than 'Suzy gave some John candy'.)
7: Can define their own consciousnesses, and describe how their own minds work
...


I think to have a good intelligience classification would be to have none, as intellegience fluctuatate and there are a million different aspects of it, the best intelligience classification would indeed be very vague, also indeed do not confuse intellegience classification with IQ tests.
breebree
You cant use speech as a measure of intelligence as it is possible that the beings vocal chords arent advanced enough for speaking, despite the brainpower
SonLight
breebree wrote:
You cant use speech as a measure of intelligence as it is possible that the beings vocal chords arent advanced enough for speaking, despite the brainpower


True, yet the ability to communicate is central. If a being lacks audible speech capabilities similar to ours, we would have greater difficulty evaluating its intelligence. Examples of this include dolphins and whales, whose whistling sounds clearly constitute language. There has been much dispute about how complex their languages actually are.

A human using only sign language is normally considered to possess "speech" capability, although that's stretching the term a bit. In the case of sign language, of course, we have the advantage of knowing that it is a complete language, essentially equivalent to a spoken language. In evaluating other species or entities, presumably we will have great difficulty understanding both the language and its level of expressiveness.
breebree
SonLight wrote:
True, yet the ability to communicate is central
Yeah I agree completly.
greatfire
ocalhoun wrote:


The classifications I'm thinking of are:
Class 1: The simplest of intelligences.
Examples: Mechanical clock, grass, algae, some bacteria, coral
Class 1 intelligences are identified in that while they can actively respond to stimulus (such as a plant growing towards sunlight) the stimuli they can respond to are very limited.

Class 2: Decision makers.
Examples: Electronics (including all but the more advanced computers), Venus fly trap, some single-celled animals, oysters
Class 2 intelligences are identified in that they can respond to several different stimuli, and can do different things based on different combinations of these. The responses are pre-programed, though.
Class 3: Learners.
Examples: Computers capable of learning from experience, most animals
Class 3 intelligences are identified in that they can take previously learned information and apply it to new situations. They can be tested to be class 3 by seeing if it is possible to train them do do different things.



problem 1: Mechanical clocks do not have any form of intelligence
problem 2:electronics do not make decisions. ever
problem 3:i cant think of any computer or computer program that learns, a computer is no more intelligent then a mechanical clock
greatfire
ocalhoun wrote:


The classifications I'm thinking of are:
Class 1: The simplest of intelligences.
Examples: Mechanical clock, grass, algae, some bacteria, coral
Class 1 intelligences are identified in that while they can actively respond to stimulus (such as a plant growing towards sunlight) the stimuli they can respond to are very limited.

Class 2: Decision makers.
Examples: Electronics (including all but the more advanced computers), Venus fly trap, some single-celled animals, oysters
Class 2 intelligences are identified in that they can respond to several different stimuli, and can do different things based on different combinations of these. The responses are pre-programed, though.
Class 3: Learners.
Examples: Computers capable of learning from experience, most animals
Class 3 intelligences are identified in that they can take previously learned information and apply it to new situations. They can be tested to be class 3 by seeing if it is possible to train them do do different things.



problem 1: Mechanical clocks do not have any form of intelligence
problem 2:electronics do not make intelligent decisions.
problem 3:i cant think of any computer or computer program that learns, a computer is no more intelligent then a mechanical clock
ocalhoun
greatfire wrote:


problem 1: Mechanical clocks do not have any form of intelligence
problem 2:electronics do not make decisions. ever
problem 3:i cant think of any computer or computer program that learns, a computer is no more intelligent then a mechanical clock

1: Or do they? No form of high intelligence, to be sure, but I would contend that they are about as intelligent as algae...
2: Sure they do:
If (condition 1 = true AND condition 2 = true) then
do action 1
else
do action 2
end if
That is a simple decision, and most modern electronics are capable of making decisions based on things like this. Take your VCR remote control:
On button-record(push)
If(button-play(push)=true) then
Start recording
else
do nothing
end if.
Your VCR remote just made a decision!
More complex electronics, of course, make more complex decisions.
3: There are two types of learning computer programs I can think of:
*High-end routers like the ones on the internet learn which paths to send which data along.
*I once had a chess program that would learn from playing, and learn one's pet strategies and one's chronic weaknesses and learn to compensate for them and take advantage of them.
powers1983
At a basic level clocks and computers do not make any descisions or learn. The programs that we load into a computer or the ratios that we set the gears on a clock are merely set in such a way as to give the illusion of 'intelligence'.

A computer is hard wired so react a certain way to whichever stimulus it is given and so is no more 'intelligent' than your knee (as in when its tapped it jerks).

I think your scale is good, but the use of the word intelligence is probably not appropriate. As someone pointed out the human brain is pretty much identical now to what it was in the bronze age - we have just had longer to learn and discover things. If Plato was born now he would be able to quite happily deal with advanced concepts but equally, if all human knowldege was wiped out overnight then we would be in exactly the same state of civilisation as thousands of years ago - not because we were any more or less 'intelligent' but only because we had forgotten everything.

Possibly your scale is too ambitious? Trying to include every object in one scale is probably not going to work without an extremely complex scale. Or perhaps you should change the classifications to the potential a species has? A rock will always be a rock no matter how much time you give it. Similarly all current animal species are probably at the pinnacle of their potential (maybe some of the higher mammals like apes, dolphins etc. may have some more to go) but humans are learning and developing new skills all the time.

David.
ocalhoun
powers1983 wrote:

A computer is hard wired so react a certain way to whichever stimulus it is given and so is no more 'intelligent' than your knee (as in when its tapped it jerks).

In that case, I'd say that your knee actually has its own, very limited, intelligence.

It may be possible, however, by this argument to combine classes 0,1, and 2 together...
powers1983
Maybe, then intelligence is the wrong word. Maybe aptitude, capability, understanding, awareness?

None of them fit but I just think the word intelligence when applied to a knee or a rock is stretching the word somewhat?

David.
qsmith
powers1983 wrote:
At a basic level clocks and computers do not make any descisions or learn. The programs that we load into a computer or the ratios that we set the gears on a clock are merely set in such a way as to give the illusion of 'intelligence'.

A computer is hard wired so react a certain way to whichever stimulus it is given and so is no more 'intelligent' than your knee (as in when its tapped it jerks).

David.


But is the Human Brain Truly different? It has certain "Hardware" (like neurons), but that is not the true source of its intelligence. - This comes from inherited ability and learned knowledge.

Likewise, an individual transistor is no more intelligent than a component in a clock, but when you combine the concepts of computation, storage, data, communication you do get a certain level of intelligence.

So while Plato may have had superior "Hardware" compared to me, avarage Joe, I AM more intelligent based on my superior knowledge of today's technology based purely on the fact that human knowledge has advanced over time

I would propose a scale of intelligence that would measure a species and an individual based on the ability to react differently to different circumstances in such a way as to provide an improved outcome based on the purpose/goal of the species / goal

I left some blanks for someone to fill in:

0 - Inanimate objects
1 - mechanical / electronic Machines without any programming, but which repond to controls
2 - electronics / Computers with programming and basic lifeforms
3 - Animals and computers with advanced AI
3.1 Insects, animals without ability to learn new behaviour but instinctive responses
:
3.9 Intelligent animals that can be / are trained and can learn and invent
4 - Normal Humans (not disabled)
4.0 - normal human baby - Can learn but has no knowledge
:
4.5 Avarage young adult, much knowledge, ability to learn, can invent / design / create
:
4.7 Genius, ability to understand the most complex technology and mathematics, can invent new technology
:
4.9 Future potential of the human mind as we evolve
5 - Who knows? change reality by folding the universe with your mind?
EanofAthenasPrime
dude you are advanced in my book...

Um fyi most humans are very much less intellegient that you...

And your scale is messed up your saying babies are as intellegient as normal humans, but average humans are much more intellegient than normal humans...hmm
SonLight
Quote:
4 - Normal Humans (not disabled)
4.0 - normal human baby - Can learn but has no knowledge
:
4.5 Avarage young adult, much knowledge, ability to learn, can invent / design / create
:
4.7 Genius, ability to understand the most complex technology and mathematics, can invent new technology
:
4.9 Future potential of the human mind as we evolve


It appears you are making room for the entire range of human possibilites, with some more thought needed about the detailed categories and how much innate ability versus skill or experience is involved. If by "4 - normal humans" you mean that all normal humans fall within the range from 4 to 5, then this makes perfect sense. Of course we could theoretically descover something which overlaps human abilities, but it seems most appropriate to develop it assuming nothing does.

Category 5 leaves the door open for either something beyond human intelligence, or the possibility that humans could one day outgrow the limitations that now define them as human.
EanofAthenasPrime
I think having an "intelligence scale" is fundamentally unintelligent. Intelligence should not fall in to stereotypes. Organic intelligence is at heart very vague and in a constant state of flux.
ocalhoun
qsmith wrote:

0 - Inanimate objects
1 - mechanical / electronic Machines without any programming, but which repond to controls
2 - electronics / Computers with programming and basic lifeforms
3 - Animals and computers with advanced AI
3.1 Insects, animals without ability to learn new behaviour but instinctive responses
:
3.9 Intelligent animals that can be / are trained and can learn and invent
4 - Normal Humans (not disabled)
4.0 - normal human baby - Can learn but has no knowledge
:
4.5 Avarage young adult, much knowledge, ability to learn, can invent / design / create
:
4.7 Genius, ability to understand the most complex technology and mathematics, can invent new technology
:
4.9 Future potential of the human mind as we evolve
5 - Who knows? change reality by folding the universe with your mind?

That's very good! A significant improvement on my scale.
Related topics
is artificial intelligence old?
Bush accepts responsibility for faulty war intelligence
Intelligence test
Are christians educated?
Artificial Intelligence Bot - Amazing !
Artificial Intelligence
any free alternives to DJ Intelligence ??????????
What is Philosophy to you?
Intelligence. How would YOU measure it?
Russia Invades Georgia
How would you judge intelligence?
Does Human Intelligence Trump Evolution?
Intelligence in Office
Emotional Intelligence in Relationship.
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> General Science

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.