Is it reasonable to say that a person runs an algorithm that will solve all problems within an efficiency x (with respect to processing time and optimality of the solution)?
No.
As mentioned elsewhere, it turns out that for the human population, any reasonable test of intelligence you can come up with will correlate with other reasonable tests of intelligence. The correlation isn’t perfect, of course.
A basic sketch of what that looks like on the hardware level is that different regions of the brain do different things- if you want to recognize faces without your face recognition module, you’re going to have a bad time. But the underlying pieces that the modules are made out of- neurons and glial cells and so on- are the same sorts of cells. So if I have a mutation that makes my glial cells more effective than normal, then every module is going to run faster/better than the normal person. But another mutation (or environmental factor or so on) might only improve one section of my brain, or might favor one region at the expense of another.
So general intelligence appears to be a thing in humans, just like CPU speed is a thing in computer hardware. But CPU speed isn’t the only story in how quickly your program runs- and looking for synthetic intelligence in better glial cells won’t do you any good if you don’t have the rest of the brain built!
As mentioned elsewhere, it turns out that for the human population, any reasonable test of intelligence you can come up with will correlate with other reasonable tests of intelligence.
Well… If it didn’t, it wouldn’t be a reasonable test of intelligence, after all.
Now, suppose you had a mutation which caused your brain cells to act in a way that was different- more effective in some cases, but less effective in other cases.
For example, I suppose that a change that made neurons release more ions faster when triggered could develop more responsive brains with faster reflexes, but the longer time to clear the chemistry and return a neuron to the initial state might impede other forms of thought.
Now suppose that the number of some organelle in the stem cell that becomes the brain determines the neuron response rate, and that there are many other similar factors which effect differences in the physical development of the brain but are substantially more random than genetic factors. Further grant that such variation is pro-survival.
Now, reasonable intelligence tests test only for things which have already been experienced: It is reasonable that a group of some people who perform poorly on every task ever attempted by a human brain might excel at a task which has not yet been attempted. “Reasonable intelligence tests” correlate well because they test the same things as each other, because they cannot test the unknown.
No.
As mentioned elsewhere, it turns out that for the human population, any reasonable test of intelligence you can come up with will correlate with other reasonable tests of intelligence. The correlation isn’t perfect, of course.
A basic sketch of what that looks like on the hardware level is that different regions of the brain do different things- if you want to recognize faces without your face recognition module, you’re going to have a bad time. But the underlying pieces that the modules are made out of- neurons and glial cells and so on- are the same sorts of cells. So if I have a mutation that makes my glial cells more effective than normal, then every module is going to run faster/better than the normal person. But another mutation (or environmental factor or so on) might only improve one section of my brain, or might favor one region at the expense of another.
So general intelligence appears to be a thing in humans, just like CPU speed is a thing in computer hardware. But CPU speed isn’t the only story in how quickly your program runs- and looking for synthetic intelligence in better glial cells won’t do you any good if you don’t have the rest of the brain built!
Well… If it didn’t, it wouldn’t be a reasonable test of intelligence, after all.
Now, suppose you had a mutation which caused your brain cells to act in a way that was different- more effective in some cases, but less effective in other cases.
For example, I suppose that a change that made neurons release more ions faster when triggered could develop more responsive brains with faster reflexes, but the longer time to clear the chemistry and return a neuron to the initial state might impede other forms of thought.
Now suppose that the number of some organelle in the stem cell that becomes the brain determines the neuron response rate, and that there are many other similar factors which effect differences in the physical development of the brain but are substantially more random than genetic factors. Further grant that such variation is pro-survival.
Now, reasonable intelligence tests test only for things which have already been experienced: It is reasonable that a group of some people who perform poorly on every task ever attempted by a human brain might excel at a task which has not yet been attempted. “Reasonable intelligence tests” correlate well because they test the same things as each other, because they cannot test the unknown.