For each of the following, give five reasons why:
a. A dog is more intelligent than a worm.
b. A human is more intelligent than a dog.
c. An organization is more intelligent than an individual human.
Based on these, give a definition of what "more intelligent" may mean.
.
I would like to object to c. The organization is not an organism. Whatever "intelligence" it has is only dependent on the intelligence of the individuals composing it. Nothing else about the organization has anything that could be likened to intelligence, by any reasonable definition.
I would like to object to c. The organization is not an organism. Whatever "intelligence" it has is only dependent on the intelligence of the individuals composing it. Nothing else about the organization has anything that could be likened to intelligence, by any reasonable definition.
Are you saying this is no "Organizational Intelligence" of any kind?
What about the armies organization into platoons, and divisions, and
phalanx, and squads, and all that jazz?
Speaking of jazz, what organizations like string quartets, and rock
bands, etc. Is not the whole greater than its parts?
.
Correct. There is no "organizational intelligence", nor is there "organizational emotions", "organizational experience", "organizational thought", etc etc etc. The whole is EXACTLY equal to the sum of the parts AND THE STRUCTURE THE PARTS ARE PLACED IN. However, a structure in itself will never be intelligent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
our brain is structured.
.
Avoiding threads designed to end in arguments = more intelligent
Check out this pic of Frodo -- well that's odd
.
Certainly, our brains have a structure. They still do not have intelligence of any sort unless you factor in the contributions of the nerve cells. Take a dead human brain, for example. The structures are the same, but I think it would be hard to claim that a dead brain is intelligent.
Mmm... In the vague hope that something interesting might actually come form this thread (while being fairly certain that none will), I'll bite(after a fashion).
worm: There is no evidence that a worm has a theory of mind. .
Dog: there is some evidence for a rudimentary theory of mind in canines. however, dogs have significant cognative bias.
Humans: Humans have a theory of mind that makes it possible for them to 'trick' dogs and other humans. However, humans still have significant cognative bias.
social groups: Can have a theory of mind as accurate as any human. It can also be structures to avoid succumbing to cognative bias.
Correct. There is no "organizational intelligence", nor is there "organizational emotions", "organizational experience", "organizational thought", etc etc etc. The whole is EXACTLY equal to the sum of the parts AND THE STRUCTURE THE PARTS ARE PLACED IN. However, a structure in itself will never be intelligent.
Except an organization can achieve things not possible by individuals, so the sum is greater than its parts.
There is no single human on the planet who can manufacture a computer mouse on their own. The isn't even a single person with the knowledge to do so. This is true for pretty much all manufactured goods.
For each of the following, give five reasons why:
a. A dog is more intelligent than a worm.
1. A dog can visually navigate around a ditch.
2. A dog can bury a bone, and then remember where it is.3. A dog will (sometimes) follow a verbal command from its owner.
4. A dog may call 911 when you fall over near-death.
5. A dog can chase a ball, fetch it and (sometimes) bring it back to you.
.
Military intelligence and collective wisdom are oxymorons. People get DUMBER when they get in groups, not SMARTER.
Military intelligence and collective wisdom are oxymorons. People get DUMBER when they get in groups, not SMARTER.
Individuals yes.
The group, maybe not so much.
Their are some really interesting emergent properties of groups.
-Increased success rates for hunting amongst africian wild dogs for instance.
-flocking/shoaling behaviour
-Bubble hunting by social aquatic mammals.
Military intelligence and collective wisdom are oxymorons. People get DUMBER when they get in groups, not SMARTER.Individuals yes.
The group, maybe not so much.
Their are some really interesting emergent properties of groups.
-Increased success rates for hunting amongst africian wild dogs for instance.
-flocking/shoaling behaviour
-Bubble hunting by social aquatic mammals.
FANTASTIC !
.
And then there is: RECAPTCHA
.
Military intelligence and collective wisdom are oxymorons. People get DUMBER when they get in groups, not SMARTER.
I also dont consider it in anyway impossible that we could not build a mechanical turk expert system, that was better at rational decision making than any hundred individual humans.
Spanky has already listed one example of a mechanical turk, Amazon Mechanical Turk is another example.