On Intelligence

Of course after Riker defends Maddox's claims against Data, we all know what 5 traits characterize a sentient being. But do we really have any idea what intelligence is? It never occurred to me that I don't know how to define or describe it so much as I know it when I see things that are unintelligent. As I am reading Goedel, Escher, Bach (GEB) I see there is a lot in the world around me, in fact in Geekdom, that I take for granted. And things that I ignored as being non essential to my corner of this little realm. For instance, Hofstader outlines some descriptions of intelligence. I am listing them here for you to think about with this preface:

"... to suggest a sharp borderline exists is probably silly. But essential abilities for intelligence are certainly:..." that is between intelligent and non-intelligent.

to respond to situations very flexibly

to take advantage of fortuitous circumstance

to make sense out of ambiguous or contradictory messages

to recognize the relative importance of different elements of a situation

to find similarities between situations despite differences which may separate them

to draw distinctions between situations despite similarities which may link them

to synthesize new concepts by taking old concepts and putting them together in new ways

to come up with ideas which are novel

What the author doesn't do is say how many of these things a person has to have to have true intelligence. But then, that isn't the aim of the book. The book discusses formal systems and informal systems, logic and illogical and the conundrums inherent in the search for AI. It isn't his job to tell us if we are smart or how smart we are. So I look at this and know that he is talking about the differences between animate and inanimate processes. I know that he is talking about how we think and not the what. It isn't a judgement, nor a case for him to be granted the arduous task of judging the readership. That, I take upon myself.

I look at his list of recognisable traits to signify an intelligent process with only the small grain of salt that says "I'm not dead so I'm still learning." and I look at myself.

Do I respond with flexibility? It depends on the circumstance. I'm pretty quick to poo poo any change at work because I like regularity. I'm not so hung up on getting a yes from a guy that I have to obsess over one. Yeah... well that HAS changed, thank you very much. And is a post of another color! I'm not very flexible with my finances though. I do have a rigid learned behavior that is quite difficult to over come. And, honestly, I choose not to overcome it. I choose a kind of selfishness in that respect. And that gets me into trouble. So not intelligent with money. semi intelligent with work. And fairly smart about letting things go rather than wallow in futility... is that a .01 out of 1?

Taking advantage of Fortuna? Well, if she'd ever grace my life with her presence that would be easier to answer. I had a great career that disappeared when I added an unstable element to my life. I did learn from that. +1. I have quit a job because of pride -1. I've been self employed and had great cash flow but didn't invest wisely -1. And I have allowed myself to be talked into something that I didn't want to do by choosing the "easy" out and not sticking to my guns. -1. I'm losing ground faster than I'm gaining it. And fear has kept me from leaping at some art choices that could have yielded something better than the run-of-the-mill job I have -1.

Making sense out of ambiguity? Riiiiight! Yeah, I'm counting HIM. -1. But let's give some credit for figuring out what the obtuse and oblique messages from so-called friends really were +3. And I usually don't get suckered by a scam. So +1 for not getting a sub-prime loan (we will not talk about Goldman Sachs here); -1 for investing in the stock market instead of myself like Suze Orman recommended; +3 for learning not to talk to certain types of people. and +1 for being able to see crazy eyes in a guy or a girl.

Recognizing the importance of elements in a situation. Check. I'm very good at that when it comes to someone elses problems. Mine all seem like a herd of white elephants in the room. And I'm good at it in art. My essays used to be a lot tighter but dry. So in that regard I am walking a fine line. Empathy is like a cheat code when it comes to emotions. But I have a hard time trying to separate emotional need from physical need. Now that I think of it though... why do I think that there is a hierarchy there? Why should the emotional need mean less than the physical? Hmm....
So, onto the next.

I do find similarities in disparate circumstance. Mayan Kings sharing phonetic qualities of Babylonian kings is that latest hair-brained thought. I can see differences in seemingly similar situations. You know like knowing that ACG's girl displays significant behaviors indicating interest than the flimsy excuses I saw in my hoped-for. They behave similarly but with distinct differences which made one of the sets a couple and the other set bitter enemies. Oooh guess which category I fell into. One guess... it's why I no have a Spear and Magic Helmet.

And I can synthesize like nobodies business. The Encyclopedia is like a giant box of puzzle pieces that I get to shape and assemble any way I want to. I have quite an agile mind. What it produces of marketable value I don't know. I don;t even know that it needs to be marketable so much as keep me from being some dupe for every flim flam man that comes along.

Novel ideas. I know he doesn't mean plots for a dime novel spine-tingler. I've got plots and heroes aplenty. Heroines and dialogue galore. You want diabolical motives? I've got 20! But who cares no big deal.... this means something more. * He must mean innovation. And to me, as I see how my friend Michelle innovates, there is an element of intuition or inspiration inherent in the ability to innovate. Of course if necessity is the Mother of Invention and that is what he means then it means that I live a cautious life that affords little opportunity to invent. Wait!!! +1 I can MacGyver crap when I don't have the right tool for the job. But again... nothing I can market.

So, as I ponder these concepts and my crude evaluation I see that I have an average overall intelligence. Nothing special in this brain. Do you see the same thing that I see in my own words? I am looking at only a partial list for one thing. I haven't the space to be eHarmony specific. But the other thing that I notice is that I am looking for a specific kind of intelligence. The whole thing boils down to marketability. Great book smarts but practical smarts are rather mundane. I'm not going to take over Wall Street with this brain. And I don't want to. I just want to keep Wall Street from eating me alive... with relish. I don't think I'm objective. And as self awareness can not be kept out of any discussion of the systems that Hofstader posits, I wonder if it is the self aware part that makes a strange loop strange. I look at me and everything gets skewed by some kind of filter. If I look at me through the art filter I have high intelligence. Money filter? Not so much. If I look at my ability to counsel outside of my self and self interest then I am proficient. when it involves me I am not.

So that act of observing the self changes results? There are a lot of physicists who think so. But can the results change so drastically? And what about learning from past missteps? That doesn't really make Hofstader's list. Actually his list looks at the process and not the result though results are implied. And................. I am starting to get a Mobius headache.

So thoughts? Questions? Insights? How did you fare looking at your own intelligence through the eyes of a mathelogical checklist?

*If you have a Little Mermaid song in your head it isn't my fault. It means that you've watched that movie at least as many times as I have and that your mind is just as agile... and wonky as mine. :)

Sheldon Cooper Reporting for Duty

I bought a book for entertainment 4 months ago. It was the first of its kind that I'd bought in a year. I know, it hardly seems geeky. Economic times being what they are and necessity being the mother of all tightened belts it is what it is. Its been two years since I've bought a book to expand my mind. Again, out of necessity. But a footnote here: when I had the money I bought and read 4-8 books a week, taking a break every 6 or 8 weeks to let the brain swelling go down ;) So when I was in Borders and couldn't find the music I was looking for, I bought a book for the most irrational reason ever: I liked the cover and the author's last name.

The book is Goedel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid or GEB for short. I'm not sure but I think that I read some of this when I was in high school. Much of it went over my head then. And much of it does now. But I like the puzzle that is the front of the book, the font types chosen and the author's last name..... Hofstadter. Hello, roomie.

The author tags it as "a metaphorical fugue on minds and machines in the spirit of Lewis Carroll."
I LOVE LEWIS CARROLL!!!!!!!!!!!! Sometimes he gives me a headache with all the talk that turns round on itself. But he has given me some great out of context one-liners that I use to keep the Higher Ups off balance. I'm evil like that. But if it helps me to understand things better than I do its worth a few headaches.

For instance, while I love music and I base my enjoyment of the art on how the voice and the notes make me feel, I know nothing of its technical construction. This is a point of contention for me now as it seems that understanding how music goes together is one of the things that will help us understand how information is processed. It is over simplistic to say the very least. But in essence this tome is the first step in understanding how our brains process information and what information it choses to process which in turn will help us understand the limitations of a computer program. It would seem a Soongian neural net is not impossible just, as yet, unreachable. The author, so far as I have read, seems to feel that math, music and art hold the keys to understanding the biology of nueral transmission because, as is especially true in music and art, of a factor of unpredictability related to self-reference. He also says that mathematical logic is not as straight forward as we all want to believe... Mobius strips with ranch anyone?

You have a headache? Sheesh! I'm the one reading the blasted thing. Bought a 12 color set of highlighters too. Why? Well aside from hitting the key points of his thesis in yellow so that I can easily find the things that have punched my ticket for a particular train of thought; it would seem that there are Quoteables (in violet), Points of Interest tangential to the thesis (in salmon), things that will require Pondering (red), specifics in the field of Physics (lime), Art things I didn't know (purple), Music facts (blue) and Characters historic and otherwise I'd never heard of (turquioise) that will require a seperate exploration.

My first thought is that this is going to be the sum of a 4 year Masters degree crammed into 742 pages of text, an 11 page Bibliography and 18 pages of Index besides the daunting outline in the beginning of the book. Yikes! But here's the thing. I don't HAVE to read this. I want to read this. One of the first things that I read is a quote from a poet named Russell Edson that calls us "teetering bulbs of dread and dream". Rythmically it is similar to the STNG "ugly bags of mostly water" description from a sentient crystaline life form found in a mining colony. And it is just as evocative. But it is the most accurate description of the human emotional condition. So I am hooked. This promises to be less dry than 4 years of lectures or 5 minutes with Sheldon on why his seat is his seat. And, as I am further along now, he seems to be saying what I have been thinking all along: nothing is going to be as rigid and regimented as we want it to be. Taming Chaos is an illusion.
Oops... Type A people around the world just had minor strokes. Sorry.