All intelligence is specific, as evidenced by the fact that a universal definition regarding the specifics of "common sense" doesn't exist.
Even when we "generalize" our intelligence, we can only extend it within the realm of human senses & concepts, so it's still intelligence specific to human concerns.
- despite our difference we have the same kind of intelligence
- our intelligences intersect, but there are capacities that each has that the other doesn't
?
It seems like for either to be true there would have to be some place of common ground into which we could both generalize independently of our circumstance. Mathematics is often thought to be such a place for instance, there's plenty of sci fi about beaming prime numbers into space as an attempt to leverage that common ground. Are you saying there aren't such places? That SETI is hopeless?
It's just not guaranteed.
> Even when we "generalize" our intelligence, we can only extend it within the realm of human senses & concepts, so it's still intelligence specific to human concerns.
...then we might fail to recognized them as intelligent when we meet them. Same goes for emergent artificial doohickeys. A theory that allows for generalization might never fine an example of it, but it's still better than a theory which doesn't because the second sort surely won't.
Unfalsifiable statements are worthless because they can't be tested.
So, at the very least, there's no point in humans trying to theorize about intelligence so general that it expands beyond human comprehension.
Basically, in the context of universal intelligence, I'm an atheist & you're agnostic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
Or: just try, then try your best to find ways your definition fails. You should find it challenging, to put it mildly, to create a bulletproof definition, if you’re really looking for angles to attack each definition you can think of. They’ll end up being too broad, or too narrow. Or coming up short on defining when exactly a non-chair becomes a chair, and vice-versa, or what the boundaries of a chair are (where chairness begins and ends).
And if that one is tricky…
So I'm asking how you define a definition as "too broad".
Because my perspective is that definitions that are in fact too broad are unimportant because no one uses them.
Universal definitions? Extremely hard.