[xpe]

> Intelligence is closely related to the concept of attractiveness and gravitas.

Interesting. I wonder why you make this connection. Do you know?

Your choice of definition seems to be what I would call "perception of intelligence". But why add that extra layer of indirection; why require an observer? I claim this extra level of indirection is not necessary. I eschew definitions with unnecessary complexity (a.k.a "accidental complexity" in the phrasing of Rich Hickey).

Here are some examples that might reveal problems with the definition above:

- DeepBlue (decisively beating Kasparov in 1997) showed a high level of intelligence in the game of chess. The notion of "being good at the game" is simpler (conceptually) than the notion of "being attractive to people who like the game of chess". See what I mean?

- A group of Somali pirates working together may show impressive tactical abilities, including the ability to raid larger ships, which I would be willing to call a form of tactical intelligence to achieve their goals. I grant the intelligent behavior even though I don't find it "attractive", nor do I think the pirates need any level of "gravitas" to do it. Sure, the pirates might use leadership, persuasion, and coordination to accomplish their goals but these concepts are a means to an end accomplishing the goal. But these traits are not necessary. Since intelligent behavior can be defined without using those concepts, why include them? Why pin them to the definition?

- The human brain is widely regarded as a intelligent organ in a wide variety of contexts relating to human survival. Whether or not I find it "attractive" is irrelevant w.r.t. intelligence, I say. If the neighboring tribe wants to kill me and my tribe (using their tribally-oriented brains), I would hardly call their brains attractive or their methods being nuanced enough to use "gravitas".

My claim is then: Intelligence should be defined by functional capability which leads to effectiveness at achieving goals, not by how we feel about the intelligence or those displaying it.

[jart]

Intelligence is an amalgamation of things. I read somewhere once that scientists tried to figure out which gene is the high IQ gene and found many contributed. It isn't a well defined game like chess. Being good at chess is to intelligence like having great legs might be to attractiveness.

You're don't like pirates? You're either in the Navy or grandstanding. People love pirates and even killers. But only if they're successful. Otherwise One Piece wouldn't be the most popular manga of all time.

Achieving goals? Why not define it as making predictions? What makes science science? The ability to make predictions. What does the brain organ and neural networks do? They model the world to make predictions. So there you have it.

This whole conversation has been about reducing intelligence to its defining component. So I propose this answer to your question. Take all the things you consider intelligent, and order them topologically. Then define intelligence as whatever thing comes out on top. Achieving goals depends on the ability to make predictions. Therefore it's a better candidate for defining intelligence.

[xpe]

> Achieving goals? Why not define it as making predictions?

Because "achieving goals" subsumes "making predictions". Remember, Russell's goal is to find a definition of intelligence that is broader than humans -- and even broader than sentient beings. But using the "achieving goals" definition, one can include system that accomplishes goals, even if we can't find any way to verify it is making predictions. For example, even a purely reactive agent (e.g. operating on instincts) can display intelligent behavior if its actions serve its purposes.

If you are seeking one clear point of view about the nature of intelligence, I highly recommend Russell's writing. You don't have to "agree" with his definition, especially not at first, but if you give it a fair reading, you'll probably find it to be coherent and useful for the purposes he layes out.

Russell has been thinking about and teaching these topics for probably 40+ years in depth. So it is sensible to give his ideas serious consideration. Also, there are scholars who disagree with Russell's definition or accentuate different aspects. Wherever a person lands, these various scholars provide a clear foundation that is all too often lacking in everyday conversation.

[xpe]

> This whole conversation has been about reducing intelligence to its defining component.

Not really, but I can see why you might say this. Neither Russell nor I are attempting to define "the one component" of intelligence -- we're saying that there is no single kind of intelligence. Only when one defines a particular (agent, environment, goal) triple can one can start to analyze it statistically and tease apart the related factors. You and I agree that the result will be multifaceted.

I wouldn't say I'm trying to "reduce" anything. I would say I've been attempting to explain a general definition of intelligence that works for a wide variety of types of intelligence. The goal is to reduce unnecessary confusion about it. It simply requires taking some extra time to spell out the (agent, environment, goal).

Once people get specific about a particular triple, then we have a foundation and can start to talk about patterns across different triples. If one is so inclined, we can try to generalize across all intelligent behavior, but frankly, only a tiny fraction of people have put in the requisite thought to do this rigorously. Instead, many people latch onto one particular form of intelligence (e.g. abstract problem solving or "creativity" or whatever) and hoist these preferred qualities into their definition. This is the tail wagging the dog in my opinion. But this is another topic.