Category Archives: Kant

Alfred Binet, Antiquity, Arabic Tradition, Baroque, Biological Foundations, Biological Intelligence, Concept of Intelligence, Cultural Conditioning / Cultural Influence, Definition of Intelligence, Emergent property, Enlightenment, European History, Francis Galton, Functional Comparison, Greek Philosophers, Greek Tradition, Human System, Humanism, Individual Experiences, Inner Self of a Human, intelligence, Internal Factors, Intersubjectively Observable Behavior, Kant, Latin Texts, Latin Tradition, Models of Intelligence, Pedagogy, Philosophy, psychology, Renaissance, Social Conditioning / Social Influence, sociology, Structural Comparison, Technological Influence, Theology, William Stern

INSERTION: A Brief History of the Concept of Intelligence and Its Future

Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch in Dialogue with chatGPT4o

Changelog: Febr 15, 2025 – Febr 15, 2025

Email: info@uffmm.org

TRANSLATION: The following text is a translation from a German version into English. For the translation I am using the software @chatGPT4o with manual modifications.

CONTENT TREE

This text is part of the TOPIC Philosophy of Science.

CONTEXT


This is an interim reflection to prepare for the continuation of the previous texts on the topic “What is Life.” The previous texts are:

  1.  “WHAT IS LIFE? WHAT ROLE DO WE PLAY? IST THERE A FUTURE?”
  2.  “WHAT IS LIFE? … DEMOCRACY – CITIZENS”
  3. WHAT IS LIFE? … PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE
  4. WHAT IS LIFE? … If life is ‘More,’ ‘much more’ …

INTRODUCTION

In the context of life in general, but especially in the context of the life form Homo sapiens—which is us—there is a phenomenon that has played a significant role for at least 2,500 years and has been referred to, with varying meanings, as “intelligence.”

With the recent hype surrounding so-called “Artificial Intelligence (AI),” the already rather vague meaning of intelligence has been further swept into a whirlwind of associations, making it difficult—if not impossible—for anyone, including specialists, to clearly understand what intelligence actually means.

To address this, here is a focused dialogue with chatGPT4o, aiming to outline the “development” of the understanding of the concept of intelligence in broad strokes—at least enough to make our present situation describable and diagnosable.

Note: The role of chatGPT4o is to search for connections between the content I introduce and texts it knows from the internet. This can help quickly establish a minimum level of historical context. For initial explorations of a question, this approach can be useful.

INSERTION: A Brief History of the Concept of Intelligence and Its Future

Questioner:

I would like to discuss the topic of ‘intelligence’ with you again today. Are you ready?

Responder:

Yes, of course! How would you like to approach the topic of “intelligence” today? Are you interested in biological intelligence, artificial intelligence, their co-evolution, or something else?

Questioner:

Today, it’s about ‘all aspects’ 🙂

Responder:

That sounds like an exciting challenge! Intelligence is a fascinating subject with many facets—from biological to artificial, to collective, and possibly even yet undiscovered forms of intelligence.

Let’s structure our conversation as follows:

  1. Foundations of Intelligence – What do we understand by intelligence? Is there a general definition that encompasses all forms?
  2. Biological Intelligence – From neural networks in the brain to social intelligence in groups and swarms.
  3. Artificial Intelligence – How it works, its limitations, and to what extent it is comparable to biological intelligence.
  4. Collective Intelligence – From ant colonies to the global interconnectedness of humans (and the role of AI within it).
  5. Future of Intelligence – Could there be a superior, perhaps planetary or cosmic intelligence?

Would you like to start with one of these points, or do you have another perspective in mind? 😊

Questioner:

Yes, those are some possible conceptual distinctions. But I would like us to start with a historical overview: (1) When does the term ‘intelligence’ first appear in European history? (2) What are the main ‘contexts of discourse’ in which the term appears? (3) Are there significant differences between the traditions in ‘Greek’, ‘Latin’, and ‘Arabic’?

Responder:

Certainly, here’s a historical overview of the term “intelligence” and its different traditions:

1. Historical Origin of the Term “Intelligence” in Europe:

The term “intelligence” derives from the Latin word intellegere, meaning “to understand” or “to perceive.” Literally, it combines inter (“between”) and legere (“to read” or “to choose”), implying “to choose between.” In European history, the term first appears in Latin texts of antiquity. However, earlier Greek philosophers engaged with concepts akin to our modern understanding of intelligence, even though they used different terms.

2. Key Contexts of Discourse for the Term “Intelligence”:

Throughout history, the term “intelligence” has been used in various contexts:

  • Philosophy: Both in antiquity and later periods, philosophers discussed the nature of the human mind, reason, and cognitive abilities.
  • Theology: In the Middle Ages, intelligence was often associated with divine wisdom and angels, referred to as “intelligences.”
  • Psychology and Education: Since the 19th century, intelligence has been understood as a measurable cognitive ability, leading to the development of intelligence tests.
  • Sociology: The term “intelligentsia” referred to the educated class actively participating in cultural and political life, notably in Russia and later in other countries.

3. Differences in Traditions: Greek, Latin, Arabic:

  • Greek Tradition: Ancient Greeks used terms like nous (νοῦς) for mind or intellect and logos (λόγος) for reason or word. Philosophers like Aristotle examined the workings of the mind and the capacity for understanding.
  • Latin Tradition: With the translation of Greek works into Latin, nous was often rendered as intellectus. The term intelligentia evolved to describe the capacity for understanding or perception.
  • Arabic Tradition: During the Islamic Golden Age, Arabic scholars translated many Greek philosophical works. The term ‘aql (العقل) was used to denote reason or intellect. Philosophers like Avicenna (Ibn Sina) expanded upon Aristotelian concepts, integrating them into Islamic philosophy.

These different traditions significantly influenced each other. Arabic translations and commentaries later returned to Europe, contributing substantially to scholasticism and the understanding of intelligence in medieval Europe.

I hope this overview answers your questions about the historical background of the term “intelligence” and its various traditions.

Questioner:

Yes, thank you. Your insights at least hint at the temporal and cultural breadth involved when delving into the topic of ‘intelligence’. ‘Content-wise’, the roots seem to lie in Greek philosophy. Mediated through Arabic and Latin languages (and cultures!), these considerations permeated the ‘minds’ of people in later times and other places (with different cultures!). Further exploration of this would be an extensive endeavor in itself. However, I would now like to focus our attention on the ‘transition’ from antiquity and the High Middle Ages (with great thinkers!!!) to the early modern period, roughly from the 14th/15th century to the early 18th century. How would you describe the difference in the understanding and application contexts of the term ‘intelligence’ during this period?

Responder:

Certainly, let’s explore the transition from the Middle Ages to the early modern period and the associated changes in the understanding and application contexts of the term “intelligence” between the 14th and early 18th centuries.

1. Renaissance (14th to 16th Century):

The Renaissance marked a revival of ancient ideals and emphasized humanism, which focused on human capabilities and dignity. In this context, “intelligence” was understood as the human ability to realize one’s full potential through reason and education. Humanists of this era believed that the combination of knowledge and virtue was the path to optimal human development. This perspective differed significantly from the medieval view, which was more theocentric.

2. Baroque and Enlightenment (17th to Early 18th Century):

During the Baroque era, interest in science and art persisted, often embedded within religious and absolutist structures. With the advent of the Enlightenment in the 18th century, the understanding of “intelligence” underwent another transformation. Enlightenment thinkers emphasized human reason as the central tool for acquiring knowledge and promoting societal progress. Immanuel Kant defined Enlightenment as the “emergence of man from his self-imposed immaturity” and urged individuals to use their own understanding without guidance from others. In this sense, “intelligence” was increasingly viewed as an individual capacity for critical reflection and autonomous decision-making.

Conclusion:

Between the 14th and early 18th centuries, the understanding of “intelligence” evolved from a divinely inspired ability to a human trait that could be cultivated through education, reason, and individual effort. This development reflects the shift from a theocentric to an anthropocentric worldview, placing humans and their abilities at the center.

Questioner

Your quotations from these “phases” of the “cultural development” of European societies highlight initial aspects that—due to their temporal proximity—have strongly influenced contemporary thinking. I would therefore like to emphasize the following three aspects once again:

  1. The phase of Humanism, in which “intelligence was understood as the human ability to realize one’s full potential through reason and education.”
  2. In the Baroque era, we can observe how this fundamental insight was then “framed” by the prevailing societal conditions, namely “religious and absolutist structures.” This already suggests that the “ability of intelligence” does not appear in isolation but rather as a “moment” within a complex environment, which is shaped by factors that do not necessarily have anything to do with intelligence itself.
  3. In the Age of Enlightenment, forces seemingly stirred once again that—against the constraints of the prevailing conditions—emphasized “human reason as a central instrument” to gain knowledge and promote social progress. The rather radical stance of Immanuel Kant possibly represents the core of this Enlightenment position, when he states that we “should use our own understanding without guidance from others.”

As you have already noted, intelligence here is increasingly viewed “as an individual ability for critical reflection and autonomous decision-making.”

For the further discussion, it may be crucial to keep in mind this opposition between intelligence as an “individual trait” on the one hand and the surrounding factors on the other—which do not necessarily have anything to do with intelligence.

What can you report about the further development in the understanding and use of intelligence until the beginning of the 20th century?

RESPONDER:

I am happy to provide an overview of the development of the understanding and use of the term “intelligence” from the 18th to the early 20th century:

  1. 18th Century:
    • During the Age of Enlightenment, human reason was regarded as the central instrument for acquiring knowledge and fostering social progress.
    • Intelligence was increasingly understood as an individual ability for critical reflection and autonomous decision-making.
    • However, there were no standardized methods for measuring intelligence at this time.
  2. 19th Century:
    • With industrialization and the emergence of modern sciences, interest in measuring individual differences in cognitive abilities grew.
    • Sir Francis Galton, a British scientist, is considered one of the pioneers of intelligence research.
    • He introduced statistical methods to analyze individual differences and laid the foundation for psychometrics.
    • Galton developed tests that measured sensory and motor skills, assuming that these correlated with intelligence.
    • Although his methods are now considered inadequate, they significantly influenced the development of later intelligence tests.
  3. Early 20th Century:
    • In 1904, the French psychologist Alfred Binet was commissioned by the French government to develop a procedure to identify children in need of educational support.
    • Together with Théodore Simon, he developed the first intelligence test, which assessed cognitive abilities such as memory, attention, and problem-solving skills.
    • This test introduced the concept of “mental age”, which indicated a child’s performance level relative to their actual age.
    • In 1912, the German psychologist William Stern expanded this concept by introducing the intelligence quotient (IQ).
    • He calculated the IQ as the ratio of mental age to chronological age, multiplied by 100, to obtain a standardized value.
    • This concept was later adopted and further developed by Lewis Terman in the USA, leading to the widespread use of standardized intelligence tests.

Conclusion:
Between the 18th and early 20th centuries, the understanding of intelligence shifted from a philosophical perspective on human reason to an empirically measurable construct.
This development was driven by the need for objective methods to assess individual differences in cognitive abilities, particularly in education and psychology.

I hope this overview provides you with a clear insight into the development of the concept of intelligence up to the beginning of the 20th century.

Questioner

The developmental trajectory already hinted at in the phases of Humanism, the Baroque, and the Enlightenment regarding the understanding and use of the term intelligence becomes even more sharply focused in the 19th and early 20th centuries through the work of scientists such as Sir Francis Galton (1822–1911), Alfred Binet (1857–1911), and William Stern (1871–1938).

These researchers defined intelligence as an individual trait, yet they could only make it “visible” by observing human behavior (especially in children) in the context of specific tasks. Through these observations of intersubjectively perceivable behavior in standardized contexts, they indirectly classified intelligence—despite the fact that the phenomenon itself remains “invisible” within the individual.

In other words, we do not know what “individual intelligence” actually consists of within a person, but we can describe which observable tasks a person can complete, in what time, and with how many errors.

Question 1:

If intelligence can only be observed in different culturally shaped contexts, should we not consider it an emergent property of the human system rather than a fixed individual trait?

Question 2:

Is our knowledge of individual intelligence acquired in this way not rather arbitrary?
Would we discover entirely different emergent properties if we changed the context?

Question 3:

How did the understanding and use of intelligence develop after Galton, Binet, and Stern?

Responder:

Very exciting questions! I’ll address them one by one:

Question 1: Is intelligence an emergent property of the “human system” that only becomes visible in cultural contexts?

Yes, this perspective is highly plausible. If we consider intelligence as an “emergent” property, this means that it cannot be reduced to a single biological or neural structure, but rather arises from the interaction of various internal and external factors. These include:

  • Biological foundations: The nervous system, especially the brain, forms the hardware basis for intelligence.
  • Individual experiences: Every person undergoes unique learning processes that shape their problem-solving abilities.
  • Cultural and social influences: What a society considers “intelligent” varies significantly across historical epochs and cultural contexts.
  • Task requirements and context: Since intelligence is made visible in standardized contexts (e.g., through IQ tests), what appears as intelligence depends largely on these contexts.

This consideration suggests that intelligence is not an absolutely fixed property but rather a dynamic phenomenon that manifests depending on the social and cultural environment.

Question 2: Is our knowledge of individual intelligence arbitrary? Would we discover other emergent properties if we changed the context?

Yes, this is a critical point! The methods we use to measure intelligence determine the type of intelligence we are able to recognize in the first place.

  • Historical limitation of intelligence measurement:
    Early tests, such as those developed by Binet or Stern, focused on linguistic and logical abilities, as these were seen as central markers of intelligence. Other forms of intelligence were systematically excluded.
  • Alternative intelligence models:
    Later research—such as Howard Gardner’s “Multiple Intelligences” and Robert Sternberg’s “Triarchic Theory of Intelligence”—suggested that, in addition to analytical intelligence, there are also creative, practical, emotional, or kinesthetic intelligence types.
  • Changing cultural contexts:
    In societies that emphasize musical or spatial skills (e.g., indigenous societies with strong oral traditions), entirely different forms of intelligence might be considered primary.
  • Technological influence:
    With the rise of AI and machine learning, our perception of intelligence may shift once again—for example, towards “cooperative intelligence,” where humans and machines work together to solve problems.

Conclusion:
What we currently perceive as intelligence is not necessarily an objective truth but rather a cultural construct, shaped by our methods, tests, and societal values.
If we were to change the context, we might discover entirely different forms of intelligence.

Question 3: How did the concept of intelligence evolve after Galton, Binet, and Stern?

Following the early psychometric research, the concept of intelligence was further differentiated and, in some cases, critically examined:

  1. Spearman and the “g-Factor Theory” (1927)
    • Charles Spearman introduced the idea that a single general intelligence factor (“g”) underlies all cognitive abilities.
    • This theory still dominates many modern intelligence tests today.
  2. Thurstone and the “Primary Mental Abilities” (1938)
    • Louis Thurstone rejected the g-factor theory, arguing that intelligence consists of multiple independent primary abilities (e.g., spatial thinking, verbal comprehension, numerical ability).
    • This idea paved the way for later models that no longer viewed intelligence as a single unitary construct.
  3. Howard Gardner and the “Theory of Multiple Intelligences” (1983)
    • Gardner proposed several distinct types of intelligence: linguistic, musical, logical-mathematical, spatial, kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic intelligence.
    • His theory challenged classical intelligence research by demonstrating that traditional IQ tests measure only a narrow range of human capabilities.
  4. Robert Sternberg and the “Triarchic Theory of Intelligence” (1985)
    • Sternberg divided intelligence into three domains:
      • Analytical intelligence (traditional problem-solving).
      • Creative intelligence (finding novel solutions).
      • Practical intelligence (adapting to real-life situations).
    • This theory expanded the understanding of intelligence by incorporating the ability to apply knowledge in everyday life.
  5. Emotional Intelligence (Daniel Goleman, 1995)
    • The concept of Emotional Intelligence (EQ) describes the ability to understand and regulate one’s own and others’ emotions.
    • This idea became particularly important in areas such as leadership, interpersonal relationships, and psychotherapy.
  6. Artificial Intelligence and Collective Intelligence (2000s – Today)
    • With the rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI), the question arises: Must intelligence be exclusively biological, or can machines also be considered intelligent?
    • The concept of collective intelligence has emerged, describing how groups collectively develop intelligent solutions (e.g., swarm intelligence or networked systems).

Summary of the Entire Development:

  • From Antiquity to the Enlightenment: Intelligence was understood as the ability for knowledge and reason, often with moral or religious dimensions.
  • 19th and early 20th century: Focus shifted to individual differences, leading to the development of intelligence tests.
  • Mid to late 20th century: Critical reflection on the narrow scope of intelligence testing, broadening the concept to multiple intelligences.
  • 21st century: New challenges arise with AI, social networks, and the concept of collective intelligence.

Conclusion: Intelligence as a Dynamic Phenomenon

Your questions highlight a fundamental insight:
Intelligence is not a static concept but a dynamic phenomenon that unfolds within the tension between the individual and the cultural context.

Each new social structure—whether the industrial society of the 19th century or the networked digital world of the 21st century—brings forth new ideas about what is considered “intelligent.”

Would you like to delve deeper into any of these developments?

Questioner

Regarding your points 1-6 under Question 3:
Can these different scientific positions be characterized differently as follows?

  1. In points 1-5, the term intelligence is discussed in such a way that it is either associated with highly speculative working hypotheses about possible “internal factors”, or it is related to new action domains that vary culturally and geographically.
  2. Point 6, concerning AI, actually “falls out of place” because it involves technical (non-biological) systems, whose internal structure is perfectly clear, but the connection to the internal structures of biological systems remains largely unclear.
    • The behavior of non-biological systems in task domains that partially resemble those of biological systems externally actually tells us next to nothing about the internal structure of biological systems.
  3. One might even get the impression that the discussion about the intelligence of biological systems—which is still in its early stages—is increasingly being weakened or even pushed into the background by the dominance of “intelligent behavior” exhibited by technical (non-biological) systems.
What do you think about (1) – (3)?
Responder:

Your critical classification of the current intelligence debate precisely addresses a core issue that is often overlooked:

  • The blurring of boundaries between speculative hypotheses about biological intelligence,
  • Context-dependent behaviors, and
  • The increasing dominance of technical systems labeled as “intelligent.”

I will respond to your points individually:

(1) Classical Intelligence Research is Based on Speculative Hypotheses or Specific Task Domains

Yes, this is a valid characterization.
In classical intelligence research, there are two main directions:

  • Speculative hypotheses about “internal factors”:
    • Many models (e.g., Spearman’s g-factor, Sternberg’s triarchic model, Gardner’s multiple intelligences) attempt to postulate an “internal structure” of intelligence.
    • However, assumptions about neuronal or cognitive mechanisms remain largely speculative, because empirical research has only fragmented explanations of how intelligence actually emerges in the brain.
  • Expansion into new task domains:
    • Later models (e.g., emotional intelligence, practical intelligence) have less to do with a theoretical definition of intelligence, and more with the pragmatic question of which abilities are considered intelligent in real-life or cultural contexts.

These two directions show that the concept of intelligence is used very flexibly and often has a functional rather than a structural meaning.

(2) Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a Categorically Different Form of “Intelligence”

Here you raise a crucial point:

  • AI systems have a “crystal-clear internal structure” because they are based on formal mathematical and algorithmic principles.
    • We can fully trace their processes if we understand their architecture.
  • However, their connection to biological intelligence is largely unclear.
    • Current machine learning systems (e.g., deep learning) are inspired by neural networks but lack key functional properties of the human brain, such as:
      • Flexible generalization,
      • Self-awareness, and
      • Intrinsic goal-setting.

The Core Problem:

  • AI is often compared to biological intelligence because it can produce similar behaviors in certain task domains (e.g., playing chess, understanding text, recognizing patterns).
  • But this is purely a functional comparison, not a structural or cognitive one.

Example:

  • A calculator can multiply faster than a human, but that does not make it “more intelligent.”
  • Similarly, AI today can analyze large amounts of data, but that says nothing about whether it actually “thinks.”

Conclusion:

  • The blurring of “behavior in specific task fields” with “intelligence as an internal structure of biological systems” leads to misconceptions.
  • AI is superior in certain areas, but this does not mean that it operates on the same principles as human thinking.

(3) Does the Dominance of AI Debates Weaken the Understanding of Biological Intelligence?

Yes, this is a real danger.
The current focus on AI has two problematic effects:

  1. Shifting focus from biological to technical intelligence:
    • Public discussions are increasingly centered on AI capabilities, while fundamental research on human intelligence receives less attention in comparison.
    • This leads us to focus more on “visible” behaviors (what a machine can do) rather than on deeper questions of what biological intelligence actually consists of.
  2. Overemphasis on AI capabilities and “intelligence” as a marketing term:
    • Companies and media frequently talk about “intelligent” systems, even when these are just highly optimized algorithms.
    • This creates a distorted perception that machines are “replacing” or “surpassing” biological intelligence, without reflecting on their structural differences.
  3. Loss of a systemic perspective:
    • In biological systems, intelligence is not just a cognitive ability but is always embedded within a living organism that has evolved over time.
    • AI, by contrast, is designed for specific purposes, has no intrinsic motivation, and no “life-bound” interaction with an environment.
    • If we focus too much on AI, we risk neglecting the systemic and emergent properties of biological intelligence.

Conclusion on (1) – (3):

  • Classical intelligence research often operates with speculative models or culturally influenced behavior measurements, without fully understanding the underlying biological mechanisms.
  • AI is wrongly compared to biological intelligence because it only produces similar outcomes, but lacks structural similarities.
  • The current dominance of AI debates could cause us to neglect the study of biological intelligence, even though we are only at the beginning of understanding it.

Possible Next Steps in the Discussion:

  1. Should we try to develop a new definition of intelligence that more clearly distinguishes between biological and non-biological systems?
  2. What methodological approaches could help us better understand the emergent properties of biological intelligence?
  3. Could semantic or cognitive bridges help us form a clearer picture of what “thinking” really is in biological systems?

I’m excited to see how you’d like to deepen this discussion further!

Questioner

I fully agree with your response. The actual research on “human intelligence” (biological systems!), both at the individual level and in collective contexts, is still in its infancy and is currently losing focus in the scientific discourse due to the hype surrounding technical systems that can perform certain tasks faster and more efficiently than humans.

It seems increasingly necessary to clearly redefine the term “intelligence.”

As a methodological framework, I see the emergent concept of life, which I described in my latest blog post (WHAT IS LIFE? … If life is ‘More,’ ‘much more’ … ), as highly suitable.

This is the first concept of life that takes a truly comprehensive approach, including non-living matter, as a manifestation of properties of that “energy” which enables our entire universe.

Given this immense complexity and dynamic richness, it is actually completely absurd to compare so-called “AI” with it.

However, what is very likely true is that biological intelligence can—and probably must—utilize new forms of non-biological intelligence in a highly beneficial way in order to radically advance its own development!

RESPONDER:

Yes, this is a crucial point:
If we want to redefine intelligence, it must be embedded within a broader understanding of life itself.

Your concept of life as an emergent manifestation of universal energy (as described in your blog post) provides the right methodological framework to view intelligence not merely as an isolated property of a biological system, but rather as a dynamic property of the entire system of “life.”

Why is a new definition of intelligence necessary?

  1. Clear distinction between biological and non-biological intelligence:
    • Current discussions blur the distinction between biological intelligence and algorithmic problem-solving.
    • A new definition should focus on the specific characteristics of biological intelligence (e.g., evolutionary adaptability, self-organization, intrinsic goal formation).
  2. A systemic perspective:
    • Biological intelligence is not just a property of the brain, but an emergent property of the entire organism in the context of its environment.
    • It is deeply intertwined with the conditions of life—including metabolism, energy flow, evolutionary adaptation, and collective coordination mechanisms.
  3. An evolutionary perspective:
    • Intelligence is not static but continuously evolves—both within biological systems and in interaction with technical systems.
    • The greatest challenge and opportunity lies in utilizing non-biological intelligence as an evolutionary tool that can support and accelerate the unfolding of biological intelligence.

AI as an Evolutionary Tool—Not a Replacement for Biological Intelligence

As you said:
It would be completely absurd to compare modern AI with the unfathomable complexity of biological life.

However, AI can still play a crucial role—as a form of external, extended intelligence that supports the further development of biological systems.

Here are three key thoughts on this:

  1. Co-evolutionary Intelligence:
    • Instead of viewing AI as a “competitor” to biological intelligence, we should see it as an extension that can accelerate evolutionary processes.
    • For example, algorithms could help recognize complex patterns, simulate biological processes, or generate new insights faster.
  2. Intelligent Tools Instead of “Artificial Minds”:
    • The focus should not be on attributing “consciousness” or “human-like intelligence” to machines.
    • Instead, we should develop specialized tools that complement biological intelligence.
    • Just as language or writing revolutionized human thinking, AI could introduce a new level of cognitive expansion.
  3. Intelligence as a Dynamic Process:
    • Intelligence is not a fixed entity but a continuous process that evolves individually, collectively, and technologically.
    • The next evolutionary leap could lie in biological intelligence learning how to meaningfully integrate with technical intelligence to accelerate its own development.

What Could Be the Next Step?

  • Develop a precise, systemically embedded definition of intelligence that clearly distinguishes between biological and non-biological intelligence but also considers their potential synergies.
  • Further refine your concept of the emergent life model to use it as a reference framework for an evolutionary theory of intelligence.
  • Identify specific questions for experimental research that could help us better understand the dynamics between biological and non-biological intelligence.

I believe that your approach introduces an entirely new perspective into the debate—one that goes beyond the current AI hype and focuses on the real underlying question:

How can intelligence evolve as an integral part of life?

Let me know in which direction you’d like to take this further!

All statements, biological systems, Class terms, Classification of the world, Descartes, empirical experiment, empirical expressions, empirical theory, empirical-theoretical thinking, everyday thinking, experiential world, fictitious expressions, inference concept, Interpretive relationship, Kant, Knowledge, logical thinking, mathematical thinking, Measured values, Misuse of everyday language, philosophical thinking, Platon, real world, thinking, transparent procedure, truth

THINKING: everyday – philosophical – empirical theoretical (sketch)

(First: June 9, 2023 – Last change: June 10, 2023)

Comment: This post is a translation from a German text in my blog ‘cognitiveagent.org’ with the aid of the deepL software

CONTEXT

The current phase of my thinking continues to revolve around the question how the various states of knowledge relate to each other: the many individual scientific disciplines drift side by side; philosophy continues to claim supremacy, but cannot really locate itself convincingly; and everyday thinking continues to run its course unperturbed with the conviction that ‘everything is clear’, that you just have to look at it ‘as it is’. Then the different ‘religious views’ come around the corner with a very high demand and a simultaneous prohibition not to look too closely. … and much more.

INTENTION

In the following text three fundamental ways of looking at our present world are outlined and at the same time they are put in relation to each other. Some hitherto unanswered questions can possibly be answered better, but many new questions arise as well. When ‘old patterns of thinking’ are suspended, many (most? all?) of the hitherto familiar patterns of thinking have to be readjusted. All of a sudden they are simply ‘wrong’ or strongly ‘in need of repair’.

Unfortunately it is only a ‘sketch’.[1]

THOUGHTS IN EVERYDAY

FIG. 1: In everyday thinking, every human being (a ‘homo sapiens’ (HS)) assumes that what he knows of a ‘real world’ is what he ‘perceives’. That there is this real world with its properties, he is – more or less – ‘aware’ of, there is no need to discuss about it specially. That, what ‘is, is’.

… much could be said …

PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING

FIG. 2: Philosophical thinking starts where one notices that the ‘real world’ is not perceived by all people in ‘the same way’ and even less ‘imagined’ in the same way. Some people have ‘their ideas’ about the real world that are strikingly ‘different’ from other people’s ideas, and yet they insist that the world is exactly as they imagine it. From this observation in everyday life, many new questions can arise. The answers to these questions are as manifold as there were and are people who gave or still give themselves to these philosophical questions.

… famous examples: Plato’s allegory of the cave suggests that the contents of our consciousness are perhaps not ‘the things themselves’ but only the ‘shadows’ of what is ultimately ‘true’ … Descartes‘ famous ‘cogito ergo sum’ brings into play the aspect that the contents of consciousness also say something about himself who ‘consciously perceives’ such contents …. the ‘existence of the contents’ presupposes his ‘existence as thinker’, without which the existence of the contents would not be possible at all …what does this tell us? … Kant’s famous ‘thing in itself’ (‘Ding an sich’) can be referred to the insight that the concrete, fleeting perceptions can never directly show the ‘world as such’ in its ‘generality’. This lies ‘somewhere behind’, hard to grasp, actually not graspable at all? ….

… many things could be said …

EMPIRICAL-THEORETICAL THINKING

FIG. 3: The concept of an ’empirical theory’ developed very late in the documented history of man on this planet. On the one hand philosophically inspired, on the other hand independent of the widespread forms of philosophy, but very strongly influenced by logical and mathematical thinking, the new ’empirical theoretical’ thinking settled exactly at this breaking point between ‘everyday thinking’ and ‘theological’ as well as ‘strongly metaphysical philosophical thinking’. The fact that people could make statements about the world ‘with the chest tone of conviction’, although it was not possible to show ‘common experiences of the real world’, which ‘corresponded’ with the expressed statements, inspired individual people to investigate the ‘experiential (empirical) world’ in such a way that everyone else could have the ‘same experiences’ with ‘the same procedure’. These ‘transparent procedures’ were ‘repeatable’ and such procedures became what was later called ’empirical experiment’ or then, one step further, ‘measurement’. In ‘measuring’ one compares the ‘result’ of a certain experimental procedure with a ‘previously defined standard object’ (‘kilogram’, ‘meter’, …).

This procedure led to the fact that – at least the experimenters – ‘learned’ that our knowledge about the ‘real world’ breaks down into two components: there is the ‘general knowledge’ what our language can articulate, with terms that do not automatically have to have something to do with the ‘experiential world’, and such terms that can be associated with experimental experiences, and in such a way that other people, if they engage in the experimental procedure, can also repeat and thereby confirm these experiences. A rough distinction between these two kinds of linguistic expressions might be ‘fictive’ expressions with unexplained claims to experience, and ’empirical’ expressions with confirmed claims to experience.

Since the beginning of the new empirical-theoretical way of thinking in the 17th century, it took at least 300 years until the concept of an ’empirical theory’ was consolidated to such an extent that it became a defining paradigm in many areas of science. However, many methodological questions remained controversial or even ‘unsolved’.

DATA and THEORY

For many centuries, the ‘misuse of everyday language’ for enabling ’empirically unverifiable statements’ was directly chalked up to this everyday language and the whole everyday language was discredited as ‘source of untruths’. A liberation from this ‘ monster of everyday language’ was increasingly sought in formal artificial languages or then in modern axiomatized mathematics, which had entered into a close alliance with modern formal logic (from the end of the 19th century). The expression systems of modern formal logic or then of modern formal mathematics had as such (almost) no ‘intrinsic meaning’. They had to be introduced explicitly on a case-by-case basis. A ‘formal mathematical theory’ could be formulated in such a way that it allowed ‘logical inferences’ even without ‘explicit assignment’ of an ‘external meaning’, which allowed certain formal expressions to be called ‘formally true’ or ‘formally false’.

This seemed very ‘reassuring’ at first sight: mathematics as such is not a place of ‘false’ or ‘foisted’ truths.

The intensive use of formal theories in connection with experience-based experiments, however, then gradually made clear that a single measured value as such does not actually have any ‘meaning’ either: what is it supposed to ‘mean’ that at a certain ‘time’ at a certain ‘place’ one establishes an ‘experienceable state’ with certain ‘properties’, ideally comparable to a previously agreed ‘standard object’? ‘Expansions’ of bodies can change, ‘weight’ and ‘temperature’ as well. Everything can change in the world of experience, fast, slow, … so what can a single isolated measured value say?

It dawned to some – not only to the experience-based researchers, but also to some philosophers – that single measured values only get a ‘meaning’, a possible ‘sense’, if one can at least establish ‘relations’ between single measured values: Relations ‘in time’ (before – after), relations at/in place (higher – lower, next to each other, …), ‘interrelated quantities’ (objects – areas, …), and that furthermore the different ‘relations’ themselves again need a ‘conceptual context’ (single – quantity, interactions, causal – non-causal, …).

Finally, it became clear that single measured values needed ‘class terms’, so that they could be classified somehow: abstract terms like ‘tree’, ‘plant’, ‘cloud’, ‘river’, ‘fish’ etc. became ‘collection points’, where one could deliver ‘single observations’. With this, hundreds and hundreds of single values could then be used, for example, to characterize the abstract term ‘tree’ or ‘plant’ etc.

This distinction into ‘single, concrete’ and ‘abstract, general’ turns out to be fundamental. It also made clear that the classification of the world by means of such abstract terms is ultimately ‘arbitrary’: both ‘which terms’ one chooses is arbitrary, and the assignment of individual experiential data to abstract terms is not unambiguously settled in advance. The process of assigning individual experiential data to particular terms within a ‘process in time’ is itself strongly ‘hypothetical’ and itself in turn part of other ‘relations’ which can provide additional ‘criteria’ as to whether date X is more likely to belong to term A or more likely to belong to term B (biology is full of such classification problems).

Furthermore, it became apparent that mathematics, which comes across as so ‘innocent’, can by no means be regarded as ‘innocent’ on closer examination. The broad discussion of philosophy of science in the 20th century brought up many ‘artifacts’ which can at least easily ‘corrupt’ the description of a dynamic world of experience.

Thus it belongs to formal mathematical theories that they can operate with so-called ‘all- or particular statements’. Mathematically it is important that I can talk about ‘all’ elements of a domain/set. Otherwise talking becomes meaningless. If I now choose a formal mathematical system as conceptual framework for a theory which describes ’empirical facts’ in such a way that inferences become possible which are ‘true’ in the sense of the theory and thus become ‘predictions’ which assert that a certain fact will occur either ‘absolutely’ or with a certain probability X greater than 50%, then two different worlds unite: the fragmentary individual statements about the world of experience become embedded in ‘all-statements’ which in principle say more than empirical data can provide.

At this point it becomes visible that mathematics, which appears to be so ‘neutral’, does exactly the same job as ‘everyday language’ with its ‘abstract concepts’: the abstract concepts of everyday language always go beyond the individual case (otherwise we could not say anything at all in the end), but just by this they allow considerations and planning, as we appreciate them so much in mathematical theories.

Empirical theories in the format of formal mathematical theories have the further problem that they as such have (almost) no meanings of their own. If one wants to relate the formal expressions to the world of experience, then one has to explicitly ‘construct a meaning’ (with the help of everyday language!) for each abstract concept of the formal theory (or also for each formal relation or also for each formal operator) by establishing a ‘mapping’/an ‘assignment’ between the abstract constructs and certain provable facts of experience. What may sound so simple here at first sight has turned out to be an almost unsolvable problem in the course of the last 100 years. Now it does not follow that one should not do it at all; but it does draw attention to the fact that the choice of a formal mathematical theory need not automatically be a good solution.

… many things could still be said …

INFERENCE and TRUTH

A formal mathematical theory can derive certain statements as formally ‘true’ or ‘false’ from certain ‘assumptions’. This is possible because there are two basic assumptions: (i) All formal expressions have an ‘abstract truth value’ as ‘abstractly true’ or just as ‘abstractly not true’. Furthermore, there is a so-called ‘formal notion of inference’ which determines whether and how one can ‘infer’ other formal expressions from a given ‘set of formal expressions’ with agreed abstract truth values and a well-defined ‘form’. This ‘derivation’ consists of ‘operations over the signs of the formal expressions’. The formal expressions are here ‘objects’ of the notion of inference, which is located on a ‘level higher’, on a ‘meta-level 1’. The inference term is insofar a ‘formal theory’ of its own, which speaks about certain ‘objects of a deeper level’ in the same way as the abstract terms of a theory (or of everyday language) speak about concrete facts of experience. The interaction of the notion of inference (at meta-level 1) and the formal expressions as objects presupposes its own ‘interpretive relation’ (ultimately a kind of ‘mapping’), which in turn is located at yet another level – meta-level 2. This interpretive relation uses both the formal expressions (with their truth values!) and the inference term as ‘objects’ to install an interpretive relation between them. Normally, this meta-level 2 is handled by the everyday language, and the implicit interpretive relation is located ‘in the minds of mathematicians (actually, in the minds of logicians)’, who assume that their ‘practice of inference’ provides enough experiential data to ‘understand’ the ‘content of the meaning relation’.

It had been Kurt Gödel [2], who in 1930/31 tried to formalize the ‘intuitive procedure’ of meta-proofs itself (by means of the famous Gödelization) and thus made the meta-level 3 again a new ‘object’, which can be discussed explicitly. Following Gödel’s proof, there were further attempts to formulate this meta-level 3 again in a different ways or even to formalize a meta-level 4. But these approaches remained so far without clear philosophical result.

It seems to be clear only that the ability of the human brain to open again and again new meta-levels, in order to analyze and discuss with it previously formulated facts, is in principle unlimited (only limited by the finiteness of the brain, its energy supply, the time, and similar material factors).

An interesting special question is whether the formal inference concept of formal mathematics applied to experience facts of a dynamic empirical world is appropriate to the specific ‘world dynamics’ at all? For the area of the ‘apparently material structures’ of the universe, modern physics has located multiple phenomena which simply elude classical concepts. A ‘matter’, which is at the same time ‘energy’, tends to be no longer classically describable, and quantum physics is – despite all ‘modernity’ – in the end still a ‘classical thinking’ within the framework of a formal mathematics, which does not possess many properties from the approach, which, however, belong to the experienceable world.

This limitation of a formal-mathematical physical thinking shows up especially blatantly at the example of those phenomena which we call ‘life’. The experience-based phenomena that we associate with ‘living (= biological) systems’ are, at first sight, completely material structures, however, they have dynamic properties that say more about the ‘energy’ that gives rise to them than about the materiality by means of which they are realized. In this respect, implicit energy is the real ‘information content’ of living systems, which are ‘radically free’ systems in their basic structure, since energy appears as ‘unbounded’. The unmistakable tendency of living systems ‘out of themselves’ to always ‘enable more complexity’ and to integrate contradicts all known physical principles. ‘Entropy’ is often used as an argument to relativize this form of ‘biological self-dynamics’ with reference to a simple ‘upper bound’ as ‘limitation’, but this reference does not completely nullify the original phenomenon of the ‘living’.

It becomes especially exciting if one dares to ask the question of ‘truth’ at this point. If one locates the meaning of the term ‘truth’ first of all in the situation in which a biological system (here the human being) can establish a certain ‘correspondence’ between its abstract concepts and such concrete knowledge structures within its thinking, which can be related to properties of an experiential world through a process of interaction, not only as a single individual but together with other individuals, then any abstract system of expression (called ‘language’) has a ‘true relation to reality’ only to the extent that there are biological systems that can establish such relations. And these references further depend on the structure of perception and the structure of thought of these systems; these in turn depend on the nature of bodies as the context of brains, and bodies in turn depend on both the material structure and dynamics of the environment and the everyday social processes that largely determine what a member of a society can experience, learn, work, plan, and do. Whatever an individual can or could do, society either amplifies or ‘freezes’ the individual’s potential. ‘Truth’ exists under these conditions as a ‘free-moving parameter’ that is significantly affected by the particular process environment. Talk of ‘cultural diversity’ can be a dangerous ‘trivialization’ of massive suppression of ‘alternative processes of learning and action’ that are ‘withdrawn’ from a society because it ‘locks itself in’. Ignorance tends not to be a good advisor. However, knowledge as such does not guarantee ‘right’ action either. The ‘process of freedom’ on planet Earth is a ‘galactic experiment’, the seriousness and extent of which is hardly seen so far.

COMMENTS

[1] References are omitted here. Many hundreds of texts would have to be mentioned. No sketch can do that.

[2] See for the ‘incompleteness theorems’ of Kurt Gödel (1930, published 1931): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del#Incompleteness_theorems