The Meaning of Life and Other Vegetables

Hello.

Intelligence is separate (and in my opinion very different) from Consciousness, though many times both of them are mentioned or discussed together.

Today I would like to share a possible line of thinking around what Intelligence is. It is one of several, somewhat different, ways I have thought about the topic over the years. This one is from about a year ago.

What is Intelligence?

In simple words, intelligence is the ability to control urges. Not just resist, but control.

Why would you control your urges? Because you are intelligent enough to understand that in the bigger picture / longer term you are better off controlling them, rather than succumbing to them.

[AI has infinite intelligence, because it has no urges, and hence an absolute ability to control those non-existent urges. But this is almost a useless insight. According to this (redundant) observation, any AI has infinite intelligence – regardless of its sophistication. It also does not help us tell entities apart – which ones deserve the title “AI” and which don’t.]

What are urges, actually?

Bacteria and insects are kinds of “automatons”. They don’t really have choices and don’t make decisions. They have certain mechanisms that respond to situations, in ways that proved – statistically – to be successful in preserving their design (DNA). Perhaps those responses are not always deterministic, and they’re certainly not always simplistic, but apparently there is no decision making involved (is there a real decision making in humans?).

Going “up” the evolutionary ladder (towards intelligence), there seems to be lees automation and more discretion. A dog seems to have more choices, and seems to be “making decisions” how to go about some things (of course a dog doesn’t decide about its heart beating, and so don’t humans). This is where urges come into play. They are necessary for situations in which the organism needs quick and effective guidance, to tell it what is likely to produce the greatest benefit. In a way, this is hard-coded knowledge that was gathered over many generations. So, urges evolved as a powerful control mechanism to bring about a certain (statistically) beneficial response in the face of multiple choice, including choice to take less beneficial action (for whatever reason). A very powerful mechanism, but not an absolute one. Apparently, the choice exists because the response is not automatic.

The problem with urges, or with the statistical shaping of urges, is that they are effective for the short term, for the relatively close environment, for common situations and for not-very-intricate contexts. And so, urges can guide the organism to respond in a way that is (statistically) optimal for the short term and close environment, but less than optimal (perhaps even detrimental) in the bigger picture / the long run / unique contexts. Evolutionarily, bigger picture and long run are what matters, and so evolution rewarded DNA that could prioritize bigger picture and long run – enter apes, and later humans.

Rather than hard coding the (statistical, cumulative) experience into a crude (and more rigid) response pattern, a more adaptive, context-sensitive system emerged, with a capability to override the established “best practice” response (urge). This is intelligence.

How come creatures with no intelligence at all – like ants and cockroaches – are arguably just as (or maybe more) evolutionarily successful?

Possible avenue of thinking: This is a completely different paradigm. With big animals, like humans, the individual matters, so the individual’s bigger picture / long-term outcome matters. This is what the above argument rests on. With ants and cockroaches, the individual is expendable (strength in numbers), and hence long-term is unimportant. Instead, they rely on a very short turnaround, where the individual passes on the baton quicker than it is likely to suffer any intricate consequences – either negative or positive – and hence quick, statistically-effective urges seem very fitting. Humans and cockroaches are not on a single intelligence-continuum. Cockroaches are up a completely different strategic branch.

To summarise:
Evolutionarily honed biological automatons can survive and thrive. However, choice seems to be a beneficial evolutionary adaptation. To provide quick and effective guidance to choice-equipped organisms, urges evolved. Urges are effective in managing the immediate, close and fairly simple; but don’t cope well with high complexity, larger time spans and a broader environment. Intelligence evolved to handle those, with a gradually-increasing ability to override urges.

Peace to all. See you tomorrow.