Intelligence is the creative impetus (imagination and will) that directs attention and movement (choice). The source of creative inspiration is memory but via intelligence there it's the possibility of something new arising. Some may call this the vital force of life.

So that the potential for novelty itself is intelligence? If then, say a flatworm as changed, and come upon a new behavior, or niche, and begins to adapt to it, is it then in this moment more intelligent than a human being on auto-pilot?

Fun fact: I once had an 11 hour debate on this very topic.

To clarify first of all, I'll speak of "problem solving" here as a broad term for anything that an intelligence may set out to achieve i.e. invent a machine, create a piece of music, paint a portrait, etc "An intelligence" being a computer, person, whatever.

Between a computer that can solve any problem given enough time and a computer that can only solve some problems relatively quickly, which is the most intelligent?

I would argue that the slower computer is more intelligent; the faster computer is perhaps just more practical. YMMV.

I would then say that a metric by which to compare intelligence is either a) how many "problems" fall into the domain of what a given intelligence can solve or b) how much better at solving any given problem is one particular intelligence.

For example, imagine two computers (A and B) that can be given one question (let's call it question X) and will arrive at an answer. If their hardware is identical and they arrive at the same answer in the same number of steps, they're equally intelligent. If the hardware is identical but one suffers a power cut mid-execution and has to start over again, they're still equally intelligent. If one computer runs slower than the other but again takes the same number of steps, they're still equally intelligent. If one requires less steps to arrive at an answer, you could then say it is more intelligent.

To expand further, if computer A can solve problem X faster than B, but B can solve problem Y which computer A can't solve at all, which is more intelligent?

This is breaking down a lot of real-world examples into more abstract analogies. You could take real-world analogues of the same things described above by asking which is more intelligent between a chess AI and a human being. Surely you immediately realise the nuance: The chess AI is better at chess; the human is better at literally everything else.

I'll leave it here for now.

So that the potential for novelty itself is intelligence? If then, say a flatworm as changed, and come upon a new behavior, or niche, and begins to adapt to it, is it then in this moment more intelligent than a human being on auto-pilot? — Wosret

Intelligence isn't better or worse, more or less. It is creating, experimenting, exploring, and learning in all forms and is constantly evolving.

I wouldn't call computers intelligent myself, nor see creative endeavors like musical composition, or an abstract painting to be a "solution".

My understanding is that computers have come up with novel mathematical proofs, which I'm told require some creativity, but they still are solutions to problems. I'm not sure that art is like that. I think that it's more expression. Making the internal external, and the problem may be a deep need to express yourself though, but computers can only be set to tasks, I don't think that they can feel the kind of alienation that leads one to such breath taking communications, and world-self relating.

I never suggested one (although all things being equal, I think that most people would say that they'd rather be more than less intelligent, more than less creative), I just asked if the flatworm would be more intelligent in that case. It wasn't mocking, or meant to be disparaging. I'm not sure that that isn't so. I was considering it, and just wanted to know if I read the implication properly.

Just to quickly check: Do you believe that the mind is a result of physical processes in the brain - or do you believe we have supernatural souls of some sort? If you do believe in souls, do you believe them to be intelligent or play any role in the intelligence process?

I think you are reading my implications properly and didn't take your comments as disparaging.

In some cultures, certain types of creativity (e.g. stealing, cheating) is given higher status because it yields wealth as on Wall Street. That certain people have a preference for greed over a beautiful painting does not make intelligence better or worse, it just comes in different forms. One can say that the Universal Intelligence is experimenting in many ways via different forms (species, individuals, etc.).

I don't much like the question. If everything is something, then nothing is, as there would be no difference. I'm something of a monist, but there can be no differentiation at all on that level, as the moment you name something, then there has to be two things -- it, and not it. One of them can't simply be some false thing, as my ontology rests on distinction, and not on reality/fiction, true/false, natural/supernatural or anything like that. I don't think that models and such are anything but tools to highlight distinctions.

That said, yes, I think that we have souls. I believe that the distinction that has been drawn, and the experience referenced throughout history is something that relates to my own, but besides a symbolic relation, I don't have a scientific explanation, but I'd prefer to call it art, than magic, or supernatural.

I am inclined to see things your way, that intelligence is a kind of creativity, rather than aptitude. This is why I disagreed that computers are intelligent in any sense. I imagine that they can attain all aptitudes, but this self-creating, self-moving element is never present.

The question was sincere and I was ready to follow up on either outcome; I just wanted to know what kind of discussion we were having. I can see why it might have felt like a trap, though.

In any case, I now realise this thread isn't for me. All the best.

I agree with you. Assigning a strictly life feature to a mechanical invention of life creates all kinds of confusion. Computers are an invention of human creativity designed to assist humans in the exploration and creativity of life. Computers are tools for intelligence, they are not intelligent. This prevents confusion.

If one computer runs slower than the other but again takes the same number of steps, they're still equally intelligent. — Efram

So if a computer takes 10,000 years to finish its procedure rather than 1 second, all else being equal, they're still equally intelligent? Imagine how many more computations the latter can make while the former is still calculating problem 1.

This wouldn't apply to humans in a competitive scenario. We'd always call the faster person more intelligent, even if all the procedural steps were the same.

In the example I gave, the algorithm (let's say) would be identical on both computers, but one computer would have a hardware limitation (slower CPU or whatever) that makes it run slower.

This wouldn't apply to humans in a competitive scenario. We'd always call the faster person more intelligent, even if all the procedural steps were the same. — Nils Loc

The question is whether we'd be right to do so. I would disagree.

Ok. Given the simplicity of example I think I understand why.

Between two people set to find solutions to diverse sets of problems, the one who acquires working solutions quicker on average is likely engaging algorithms with less steps and therefore generally more intelligent.