What is an intelligent act?

Great Debates
1

We are talking about an intelligent human act; that’s the only I know from myself and from fellow humans.

And we judge anything else intelligent or not from the standpoint of our own intelligent acts.

I will name some qualities of an intelligent act.

And I invite others to offer theirs, and also to elaborate on mine, or to point out why the ones I name are not acceptable.

First, before anything else, an intelligent act must be in accordance with knowledge, more specifically with information, most importantly of its possibility, then other adjunct cognitive data.

Before a person do an act, he must get information; otherwise he is not acting in an intelligent fashion.

Second, it must be productive of a perceived boon to the actor; we call this effectivity.

(The rest I will mention are not in order of importance, not necessarily.)

Third, it must be efficient, meaning there is frugality of time, labor, ways and means employed.

Fourth, it must not cause so much as any discomfort to the actor, in its execution.

Fifth, it must not be unintelligent in its un-entended effects, on the basis of already mentioned qualities, specially in regard to quality #2.

Sixth, it must be in accordance with accepted standards of aesthetics.

Susma Rio Sep

2

I’m not sure that I agree; an intelligent is one that is carried out by an actor that has understanding of the reasons for the act and the likely implications, but I disagree that it is always beneficial to the actor; parents may knowingly sacrifice themselves for their children (or for the good of others, or society etc.)

Furthermore, intelligent acts may cause temporary discomfort in pursuiit of greater good or relief; a visit to the dentist is a smart idea and may be painful, but the alternatives can be worse.

3

my definition: the deleting of this thread

4

Dear Mang:

You have a point there, an act is not always beneficial to the doer.

In quality #2, we must distinguish between the doer as an individual and as a member of a collective body.

The doer then must perceive a boon that is – if not to his individual self – is to his collective body.

An intelligent act can cause discomfort to its doer while in pursuit of the act, according to you.

I agree perfectly.

But the end purpose is or should still be possible, namely, a perceived boon

We have to understand also then that acts can be more intelligent or less intelligent.

But there is one quality that is essential or two, namely, information and boon to the doer (individual or in behalf of his collective body).
Susma Rio Sep

5

Intelligence itself I would define as the capacity to understand, learn, modify cognitions, and extrapolate beyond contexts.

An intelligence act, thus, would be one that involves:

  1. Understanding of a situation
    1.1) Value analysis
    1.2) Cognitive analysis
  2. Information recollection
  3. Information gathering

In my opinion, an ‘intelligent’ act is one that:

  1. Is carried out in fulfillment of a predermined goal.
  2. Can objectively be determined as having been productive. So, I don’t entirely agree that ‘being productive of a perceived boon’ is sufficient. Necessary, yes. Sufficient, no. barring unforseeable circumstances. (Note: I said ‘unforseeable’, not ‘unforseen’.) Also,
  3. Minimises subjective discomfort to the actor
6

GAAAAAAHHH!!

i was still thinking it out!
PLEASE OMIT PREVIOUS POST!

7

(aasna feels highly embarrassed at having her ‘intelligent’ thought processes exposed. she blushes much and attempts to recover.)

Intelligence itself I would define as the capacity to understand, learn, modify cognitions, and extrapolate beyond contexts.

An intelligence act, thus, would be one that involves:

  1. Understanding of a situation
    1.1) Value analysis
    1.2) Cognitive analysis
    1.3) Goal Setting
  2. Information recollection
  3. Information gathering
  4. Application
    4.1) Minimum subjective discomfort to actor
    4.2) Process efficiency
  5. Evaluation
    5.1) Subjective success
    5.2) Objective success

As regards the point made by the OP about fitting accepted aesthetic standards, I’m not quite sure what is meant. If a sort of moral acceptability is implied, I do not see why it should be needed; an act need not be socially acceptable to be considered one that involved intelligent processing.

8

Today seems to have been declared Aasna’s Foot in the Mouth Day (Foot on the Keyboard Day?).
Please read “An intelligence act, thus…” as “An intelligent act, thus…”.

9

Dear Aasna:

Thanks for your inputs.

I really appreciate them.

You say:

As regards the point made by the OP about fitting accepted aesthetic standards, I’m not quite sure what is meant. If a sort of moral acceptability is implied, I do not see why it should be needed; an act need not be socially acceptable to be considered one that involved intelligent processing.

Maybe I should remove that quality of aesthetics.

You see, I am trying to reduce to the most bare minimum the essentials of an intelligent act.

Then I also said to Mange that an intelligent act can be more or less intelligent.

Which means that I am myself not so certain about the bare essentials of an intelligent act.

Would you like to know from what standpoint I am trying to collect the bare essentials?

I stated the standpoint in the very first line of my original post, thus:

“We are talking about an intelligent human act; that’s the only I know from myself and from fellow humans.”

I myself – just like you? – in many instances cannot be clear with my thinking, and therefore am a bit fuzzy with my words.

OK, let me put it this way:

I am trying to understand an intelligent act from its opposite, a stupid act.

Thus an act done without knowledge when the doer is capable of knowledge is stupid; accordingly, an intelligent act must be founded on knowledge.

Then we also consider an act stupid if it causes harm to the doer; so an intelligent act must not cause so much as discomfort.

Second, it must be productive of a perceived boon to the actor; we call this effectivity.

And so on.
On the requirement of aesthetics, I think that can be left out.

An act can be intelligent even though it does not satisfy any standards of beauty.

Yes, I will agree to remove that quality.
There are all kinds of acts: intelligent, moral, beautiful, and others.

Can you see with me that an intelligent act need not be moral nor beautiful (now that I have removed the requirement of aesthetics)?

But a moral act and a beautiful act, do they have to be intelligent?

Do we say, it’s a moral act, but stupid.

Or, it’s a beautiful act, but stupid.

On the basis of my qualities of an intelligent act, now reduced to five, a moral act would seem to have to satisfy my above described qualifications, except of course the last one.

But a beautiful act, I tend to feel that it is not necessary.

A beautiful act is a beautiful act, howeve stupid?

Susma Rio Sep

10

We have replies here which I can consider to be intelligent, except the one of Phallacy:

Maybe Phallacy can tell us how deleting my thread is an intelligent act on his part. For that purpose, he has to give us his own criteria of intelligent acts. Here are mine again:

So, Phallacy, what are you waiting for? Think carefully and formulate what could be your babies of the mind, the thinking one, that represent your standards for intelligent acts.

I am always one with a very open mind, ready to accept constructive ideas from other people, who are intelligent and avid for learning, like myself.

Susma Rio Sep

11

Susma Rio Sep
here are some thoughts (maybe intelligent thoughts ?)

The act must be based on the actor’s knowledge
The actor must validate their knowledge, as to its veracity and applicability.
The actor must seek to gain information, in the event that the actors knowledge is insufficient to justify the act.
The actor should predict the possible outcomes of the act, and assign probability and effectivity (useful term, thanks) to all the predicted possible outcomes.
The actor should then chose to carry out the act depending on their perception of the possible outcomes, if the act seems to be worth while (that is have a net effectivity based on all the possible outcomes)

The intelligence of an act, is then measured by how well the above thought processes were carried out.
As you see, the Intelligence of an act by my definitions is dependent on the thought processes going into the act, rather than the actual result of the act.

For a counter point to your list, Say Bippy hears from a friend that the horse Burning Rubber is a cert to win the Grand National. So Bippy puts $500 bet on Burning Rubber.
If Bippy wins $1000, then this act is by your definition above ‘an intelligent act’.
If Bippy loses his $500, then this act is by your definition above ‘not an intelligent act’

I am not at all sure I would agree with that interpretation of Bippy’s gambling.

12

Dear Bippy:

I don’t think you are doing me justice in your words:

Could you please go over my list of qualities in intelligent acting.

Anyway, I agree with you about your criteria of intelligent act; my and yours can go together.

Now, let us analyze whether gambling is an intelligent act.

First, let’s determine what are gambling acts.

A chess game is not gambling, agreed? At least not between the two players; for its result depends upon the intelligence of the players.

But people betting on one or the other player, are they gambling? If they are gambling, are they gambling intelligently. If they are gambling intelligently; so also and more so, as we said just then are the players themselves; for they are acting intelligently, using their intelligence.

Yet, we might have to take back our opinion that for the players chess is not gambling; it is gambling also for them because they themselves don’t know for sure who between them will win, namely, who is more intelligent consistently to the end of the game, at which the king of one or the other is cornered inescapably.

We are seeing here that gambling is intelligent more or less, depending on how much intelligence can be harnessed to maneuver the game to the end desired by one or the other gamer. These are games having elements of intelligence and/or physical skills as in physical ones like basketball, tennis, and even golf.

But what about games of pure chance? And what is chance? The occurrence of an event on forces not within our knowledge much less our control. Anyone knowing and in control of these forces? God, according to religious theists and metaphysical theists.

So, God is chance. And the law people talk about an act of God, when we cannot pin responsibility on any human person, such as sparrows’ droppings falling on one’s head. That’s an act of God; such acts of God can be very ruthless and catastrophic.

Are we getting anywhere with the question whether gambling is intelligent? Yes, it is; ask the experts who know about casino operations, they will tell you that for the operator it is an intelligent undertaking, exploiting the unintelligence of the gullible.

This brief consideration of gambling would seem to confirm to both Susma’s and Bippy’s position, that an act is intelligent if and only if the agent acting is knowledgeable about and in control of the forces that will influence the course followed by an act in and to its consummation.

If the act is not based on complete knowledge – and is there such a knowledge for mortals? – then it is certainly not within the control of the agent, in which case it is gambling essentially, taking chances. So all human acts are gambling? Not necessarily in the short terms, but always so in the long terms.

Now, what about the war of Bush and his colleagues against Iraq? Was it an intelligent act; or was it stupid and crazy as Susma maintained in another thread? Intelligent for those who opt for limited knowledge wilfully according to their own kind of intelligence, but certainly stupid and crazy for people who are receptive to fuller knowledge and are logical.

Susma Rio Sep