First, I am not just any physics teacher. I am a very good physics teacher who for a long period of time has been successfully using his intelligence.
The second is also introducing two definitions:
i.e. keep the word "Intelligence" for "an ability to solve problems which have never been solved before (by the host).", but name the animal behavior differently, e.g. "Animal Intelligence", or "Pre-Intelligence", or "Quasi-Intelligence", "Pseudo-Intelligence", "Intelligent Orientation". Of course, there is some overlapping between the two, some gray area when intelligent species look acting like animals, and animals look acting like intelligent species - that is inevitable - but it does not make the definition less useful.
2. a definition of something, including Intelligence, should be concise, sufficient on its own, without the need for additional explanation of a possible interpretation.
3. the host of intelligence does NOT have to use it wide, the definition should allow to observe (measure, assess) one individual and make a conclusion if the host has or doesn’t have Intelligence (e.g. Turing tests).
4. Intelligence should not depend on a specific field of action; the property/ability/feature called “Intelligence” should be “field-independent”, which makes it “field-universal”, meaning, if it works in one field, it will work any any/every field. The ability to create solutions to problems which have never been solved before is exactly of that type.
NB: This response of mine effectively concluded our communication; since then I have not heard back a word. As an expert in Human Intelligence, which includes human psychology, I know the reason for having our communication severed. I shook the ego of the authors of the paper. They had a nice construct of what they called "Intelligence", but some guy from the streets, someone with no name, no recognition, poked and made a big hole in that construct. So, they did what most people do in this situation, they pretended that nothing happened. Of course, those people are not idiots. In their minds they continue to mull over our conversation, their argument, my counterarguments. Eventually they will come up with their new definition of Intelligence, one which will have something from their old definition but will also have crucial elements of mine, and they will think that they came up with this new definition completely on their own. Which is fine. All this AI stuff for me is just a hobby on a side (at least for now). Once in a while I just like poking a sleeping bear and see what happened. So far 100 % of my expectations turned out to be correct.
From my view, this is not yet a definition, because these conditions are necessary, but not sufficiently sufficient; but it grasps the essence of what a game is.
P.S. After the letter was sent I came up with this shortest sentence: a game is (1) a pretended life (in that what people call "life" they would not do "it"); or (2) a life pretended to look like a game (in that what people call "life" they want do "it" but do not want to show that they want).
Well, I was not the first one to venture a similar sentiment: "Life is a theater".
Interesting fact: one can replace word "art" in the first quote with basically anything ("teaching", "maganing", researching", ...) and it still will stand!
P.P.S. After I have developed my own definition of game, and its shortest version (the sentence in blue) I, naturally, looked it up online. They all are basically say that a game is a play or a competition, or ..., and there is a list of possible activities, which is technically not a definition.
Appendix III: on the general structure of a problem-solving process
Everyone who has a slightest interest in AI should do it, too. I would like to point at only three (of many) interesting moments.
For more on AI:
Dr. Valentin Voroshilov
Education Advancement Professionals
The voices of my students
"The Backpack Full of Cahs": pointing at a problem, not offering a solution
Essentials of Teaching Science
Dear Visitor, please, feel free to use the buttons below to share your feelings (ANY!) about this post to your Twitter of Facebook followers.