>>13173765this is more a philosophical question than a scientific one. intelligence only has meaning if it is applied to a given species in order to compare the level of intelligence of each member of said species and to rank them from least intelligent to most intelligent.
we might be biased by how primitive we are. there might be no way to measure intelligence and assign a number with things like IQ. because each brain will perform the best according to what is the purpose of the individual, and the amount of purpose of the individual could be infinite; intelligence is meaningless with no consciousness. a common purpose is accumulating wealth.
you cannot measure it because a brain is always slightly different. a bit like CPUs. an easy way to compare them is to do benchmarks to test their actual performance. this is very accurate to measure their performance, more than comparing simple attributes, you have to compare them in real world tasks to be sure, a mistake or an unknown factor could have happened inside during the manufacturing process of the CPU. humans however are not man made and can be subject to mutations very often, you can therefore never find a standard way to measure the brain, you have to measure their performance.
for humans it's a bit complicated, but you can rank achievements by order of difficulty (being a billionaire starting from nothing > being a millionaire starting from nothing, and so on). grouped by interests/goal. you can argue that an activity which requires you to use your brain a lot makes you more intelligent (therefore a wealthy developer will always be more intelligent than a sports billionaire). such activity will be ranked higher in the "difficulty" ladder.
so if you want to measure intelligence, you have to find a bunch of autists who would make a list of every goal and achievements possible and rank and categorize them by order of difficulty, measuring brain activity, length of task, % of person that attempt/fail, etc
