On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, John Thornton wrote:
> Important distinction? The labeling of dogs as "more intelligent" than cats
> is absurd. Cats are good at being cats and dogs are good at being dogs.
> Dogs trainability stems primarily from their being pack animals rather than
> solitary like cats. One could just as easily say cats are "more
> intelligent" than dogs because of their greater ability to hunt alone and
> outsmart their prey rather than depend on simply overwhelming their prey
> with a pack. Both statements are equally absurd.
Yes.
John reinforces my point about language earlier: people are using the term "intelligence" as if it objectively and universally refers to human, chimps, dogs, and cats. The language ensnares us: people get into silly debates about "cat intelligence" and "dog intelligence" because they arbitrarily apply the same term to quite different behaviors in different animals.
I guess this is why I am a little dubious about AI: when I see people use terms like intelligence in both scientific research and everyday life, the definitions and examples are all over the place, and often contradictory. Seeing eye dogs? Self-awareness? Thinking "beyond your conditioning"? Are these all instantiations of the same ontological referent? Or does the term simply get used in different ways in different social contexts as a part of local language practices?
(For ex: I tell my child "you're smart"--a demonstration of love and emotional support.)
Miles