If you exclude reading, writing, speaking, and listening (ie use of language, including math or code) as mere table stakes, how would you define “intellectual” in terms of essential non-language behaviors that non-intellectuals typically don’t exhibit?
Conversation
Replying to
An intellectual computes a function not efficiently computable by a non-intellectual—because of having key state (from canon, grand tour), or computational superiority.
1
1
2
Replying to
Canon = language input. Which leaves your definition resting on grand tour alone (by which I assume you mean actual wide-ranging travel)
1
1
Replying to
Oh! I misunderstood, because that function is from linguistic input to output. I don’t think I could be convinced of an intellectual with a vow of silence.
1
1
Replying to
I’m not saying they don’t use language. I’m saying that such use cannot be part of the definition I’m looking for. It’s like asking “what besides above-average height characterizes basketball players?”
I’m blocking out the obvious bit.
1
1
2
Replying to
I can’t tell whether you’re asking “except height” or “except playing basketball”
2
3
Replying to
So you’re saying “intellectual” is as finitely circumscribed an activity as basketball? Intellectualism *is* use of language the way basketball is playing basketball?
I don’t know if it is, but it seems that way.
Replying to
I am prepared to believe in a nonhuman, nonlinguistic intellectual. But I’m going to have more questions about the bit after the comma than the bit before. Until then? Yeah. Intellectual is metacognition, and language is needed for the strange loop.
1
7


