- #36
Giantevilhead
- 23
- 1
The OP also said this:
As for the definition of intelligence, a behaviorist would pretty much be fine with any definition so long as it describes observable and measurable phenomenons, provided of course the definition is standardized. Otherwise, they really don't care what behaviors and abilities you put under the label of intelligence, "a rose by any other name" and all that.
Kherubin said:Further to this, I would like to generalize the question even more. I think one of the myriad reasons intelligence fascinates us is because it appears that an esoteric, abstract phenomena arises from a, albeit complex, material predicate.
Along these lines, I have been wondering whether intelligence itself belongs to a 'set' (in the mathematical sense) of other potential physical phenomena. I am interested in what form this 'set' would take along with the other 'members' of the grouping. Perhaps intelligence is one of many, seemingly 'abstract' phenomena which can arise from the complex organization of matter.
As for the definition of intelligence, a behaviorist would pretty much be fine with any definition so long as it describes observable and measurable phenomenons, provided of course the definition is standardized. Otherwise, they really don't care what behaviors and abilities you put under the label of intelligence, "a rose by any other name" and all that.