>>12217089>aiYou could object saying that when an act of artificial thinking reaches a true result, for example when a computer assures us that 2 + 2 = 4, this is an act of intelligence, since it gives us a truth.
The difference is as follows: the computer does not intellect that 2 + 2 = 4, but only performs the operations that result in 4, according to a pre-established program or algorithm.
If it is programmed according to the rule that 2 + 2 = 5, it will not only always give this result, but will still generalize it to all similar cases, according to rule 2a + 2a = 5a.
Intelligence does not consist only in arriving at a true result, but in admitting that result as true.
To admit means, first, to be free to prefer a false result (a computer can be programmed to prefer false results on a number of occasions, but always according to a pre-established pattern).
Secondly, it means believing in that result, that is, taking personal responsibility for its affirmation and the consequences that derive from it.
In this sense, intelligence is only possible in free and responsible beings, and the first free and responsible being I know on the scale of the living is man: no being below him has intelligence.
Intelligence is the relationship that is established between man and truth, a relationship that only man has with the truth, and that he has only when he understands and admits the truth, since he can become unintelligent in the instant when he forgets or denies it.
