It seems that ID critics do not agree with my definition of intelligence. Some opinions so far:
"laughably stupid", "utterly futile", "comical", "not even wrong", "goofy", "just silly", "arrogant", and "absolutely, positively, comically stupid"
Actually, all those comments all came from one commenter named "aiguy". (The fact that my definition has provoked a steady stream of insults rather than an informed substantive response tells me that I have struck a nerve and must be on to something!)
Well, aiguy (or anybody else who wants to try), this is your chance to substantively challenge The Intelligence Product™ in a formal internet debate!
Resolved: For any machine, intelligence may reasonably be defined as the product of problem solving, planning, and learning.
IP = (PS)(P)(L)
I will take the affirmative. The debate will take place in two stages:
1) Opening statements will be posted, 1000 words or less, and after a pre-determined period responses will be posted, 1000 words or less.
2) First round of judging.
3) Main argument: 3000 words or less, followed by rebuttals and a brief closing argument. 2000 words or less total.
4) Final round of judging.
We will need three mutually agreeable judges: preferably an ID'er, an ID critic, and an "I don't care". Volunteers?