larry@JPL-VLSI.ARPA (07/17/86)
[Medium length: 75 line]
Yes, even defining "intelligence" and "creativity" is very difficult, much
less studying their referents scientifically. But I think it's possible.
General systems theory helps, despite some extravagances and errors its
followers have committed. (Stavros McKrakis pointed out a paper to me by
Berliner that discusses some of the worst.) It resolves the difference
between reductionism and mysticism in a useful way, by raising the status of
information to a physical metric as important as space, time, charge, etc.
GST focuses on the fact that when parts are bound together, interaction
effects bring into existence characteristics which none of the parts possess.
Science is organized around this, with physics concentrating on atomic and
subatomic domains, chemistry concentrating on molecular interactions, and
so on. The universe is divided up into layers of virtual machines, and for
the same reason we do it in computer science: intellectual parsimony. The
biologist, for instance, doesn't have to know whether the hydrogen atoms in
a sample of water have one, two, or three neutrons. Water functions much the
same regardless. (There ARE fascinating and subtle differences some
researchers are investigating.)
Definition (and investigation) of intelligence and creativity are bound up
with another "impossible to define" word: life. "Life" is a label I give to
systems which maintain their existence in hostile environments by continuously
remaking themselves. Over a period of time (sometimes quoted as seven years
for humans), each organism exchanges all of its individual atoms with the
environment. Yet it still "lives" and "has the same identity" because its
pattern is (essentially) the same.
Obviously each organism must somehow "know" the pattern it must maintain
and the safe limits for change before corrective action is taken. Biologists
have concluded that genes (and gene-like adjuncts outside them) don't contain
enough information. Studies point to the conclusion that some of this
information is stored in the universe itself, in the form of natural laws
for instance.
Additionally the organism must be able to sense itself, compare itself with
the desired pattern, and take action to correct for deviations. In some cases
it acts on its environment (pushing away a danger, for instance); in others it
acts on itself (say, standing tall and bristling to frighten attackers).
"Intelligence" I would define in very general terms: storing information that
describes an organism's external and internal universe, comparing and other-
wise processing information in the service of its survival and health, and
controlling its action. (Obviously, this definition could be formalised and
made more precise, but it will do as a first cut.)
It may be protested that these terms are too general, that too many things
would thus be classified as alive and/or intelligent. I would say that it's
more important to subclassify intelligence and study the interactions and
limits of different kinds of intelligence, to study the physical bases of
intelligence. I see nothing wrong with saying that a computer program of the
Game of Life is really alive (in a very restricted and limited sense which can
be couched in formal terms) or that a virus has (very limited, specific kinds)
of intelligence. I see it as useful parsimony that intelligence is defined as
a multi-dimensional continuum with protozoa near one end, humans in the middle
on many continua, and who knows what at the upper end(s).
"Creativity" is a particular kind of intelligence. It can be recognized by its
products: ideas, actions, or objects that did not exist before. This is not
an absolute criteria; it's not all that rare for even those we recognize
as geniuses to create the same idea independently (or as much as humans can be
who are working in the same field). There are middle and low grades of
creativity as well: the same "Chicken Kiev" jokes conceived by hundreds of
people on the same day, for instance.
Obviously, these new things don't appear from nowhere. There are conservation
laws in thought as well as in physics (though very different ones). These
novelties are made up of percepts/concepts already in memory, selected and
bound to create a system with emergent properties that convince us (or don't)
that we've come across something original. (I've gone into the dynamics of
creativity in a previous message and won't repeat myself.)
Larry @ jpl-vlsi