What the heck does intelligence in the sense that Melanie used the term really consist of?
Not having listened to the debate, I unfoundedly imagine intelligence might mean for her something related to intelligibility. The idea being: Something is intelligent if it “intelliges” whatever is intelligible; if it does what we do when we play our part in the intelligibility of something. (Both “intelligence” and “logic” come from a root meaning “to gather; to speak”, also “to lay out, arrange”.) Whatever we might want to communicate by speaking is intelligible, so if something is intelligent, it should be able to relate to what we lay out (λέγειν) the way we do. If it relates to what we say the way we do, it’s friendly, though not necessarily subservient.
Not having listened to the debate, I unfoundedly imagine intelligence might mean for her something related to intelligibility. The idea being: Something is intelligent if it “intelliges” whatever is intelligible; if it does what we do when we play our part in the intelligibility of something. (Both “intelligence” and “logic” come from a root meaning “to gather; to speak”, also “to lay out, arrange”.) Whatever we might want to communicate by speaking is intelligible, so if something is intelligent, it should be able to relate to what we lay out (λέγειν) the way we do. If it relates to what we say the way we do, it’s friendly, though not necessarily subservient.