Is Intelligence Largely an Ability to Make Accurate Predictions?

I’ve been wondering this morning to what extent, if any, an ability to predict events is a crucial measure of intelligence?  Maybe even the crucial measure?

For instance, can we measure how “people smart” someone is by how likely they are to accurately predict the behavior of others?  Or, how “self smart” someone is by how likely they are to accurately predict their own behavior?

Again, can we measure how “logic smart” someone is by how likely they are to accurately predict the next logical step in a sequence?  Or, how “body smart” someone is by how likely they are to accurately predict their or someone else’s next motion in a sequence of movements?

On the face of it, the notion of predictive prowess as a crucial measure of intelligence seems to fit nicely with a certain bit of epistemology.   We know, for instance, that our senses do not reproduce reality but instead represent or symbolize it.  That is, we do not see photons bouncing off atoms at a certain wavelength (which is the reality) — instead we see a certain color (which is merely a representation or symbol, created by our brain, of the reality).

Now when we move up a level or two — from the senses to conscious thought — we once again find symbolism, for conscious thought does not reproduce or mirror reality, but instead represents or symbolizes it.   A point I previously discussed here.  Indeed, it seems as if on every level we know of, the brain creates symbols that have the same basic relationship to reality that the symbols on a map have to the terrain that the map represents or symbolizes.

Now, the notion of predictive prowess as a crucial measure of intelligence seems to fit nicely with all that epistemology I just referred to.  But how so?

Well, the way you judge whether a map is accurate is essentially the same way you judge whether a proposition is true.  Namely by whether the map predicts its terrain or by whether the proposition predicts what it refers to.  Suppose a map says an erotic dance club can be found at location X.  We travel to location X and do indeed find an erotic dance club there.  Thus, in a state of sublime happiness, we pronounce the map “accurate”.   In much the same way,  the truth of a proposition is measured by the extent to which it predicts what it refers to.

Suppose I assert the proposition that Jones will pass by the wallet laying on the sidewalk without investigating.  Suppose Jones does indeed pass by the wallet without pausing to investigate it.  My proposition is demonstrated true because it turned out to be an accurate prediction of what Jones would do.

Again, suppose I assert the proposition that I am not a malicious person.  Suppose then I go from site to site on the internet trolling people with threats and insults.  My proposition is demonstrated false because it turned out to be an inaccurate prediction of my own behavior.

Can it therefore be reasonably said that a crucial measure of intelligence is how well a person (or species, for that matter) is able to predict events?

Well, it’s a bit difficult to argue the converse, isn’t it?  It seems to make a mockery of what we might mean by “intelligence” to argue that an inability to predict events is a mark of high intelligence.  As we’ve seen, that would be much the same as saying that “intelligence” consisted of an inability to formulate true propositions.

Of course, the absurdity of the converse does not necessarily mean our thesis is true, because we could define “intelligence” in ways other than an ability to accurately predict events (or the converse of that).  Still, I find it intriguing to consider that intelligence — perhaps even the best possible definition of intelligence — might be described as the likelihood of someone’s making an accurate prediction of events.

The other notion I’ve been toying with this morning consists of the claim that “intelligence” can be elegantly defined as the total amount of caffeine one has coursing through one’s brain.  At the moment, I’m about to get my second cup of coffee and further ponder that notion.