Simon
You seem to be misunderstanding the point of science. We don't define something, then tries to measure it. We experience something, want an explanation based on the measurements, then come up with reasonable definitions.

The scientific community is still split on the issues as to whether consiousness is mechanistic or dualistic in nature. Many believe that it is mechanistic and that would imply that we do just process data according to instructions (self programmed instructions...see self organising systems).
If we are actually mechanistic and act based on instructions then the consciousness is not that mechanism, it's the one that experiences the instructions. Sort of a guy watching a movie. It's still intelligence to be conscious about it.

Still, if consiousness is not mechanistic, there is some sort of force/entity existing in some sort of other dimension that we cannot measure. How do we distinguish between systems that are mechanistic (not consious) and those that are dualistic (consious)?
Are you considering solipsism? Why? Do you you really want to defy the social acts and experiences? I don't think so. We are social beings, it is a rational paradigm and even pragmatics act socially, we need each other and that's where it becomes a practical issue. That's a reason for science too.

It almost seems like we have switched roles, why?

It is not about cheating an investigation deliberately. The how point of your formula is that each variable must be measureable. You need to be able to measure (or detect) consiousness for your formula to be meaningful...not just guess at it.
We detect photons all the time, do we count them? no, still we "know" about how light it is out there. Similarily we "know" who we are talking to, an unconscious stone, a sleeping man or a fully conscious student sitting in a class.
This is not the issue. I'm not questioning how effectively one can measure any of the variables (well I am but not just that), I am questionning whether the relationships you are implying by your formula even exist!
My simon how you have changed. Suddenly you just start asking about if things exist Where is your sense of reason now?
You are saying that, for a consious entity, the intelligence is equal to it's information. That sounds more like a definition of knowledge than intelligence. I definitely don't equate knowledge with intelligence.
knowledge? Excuse me but how do you define knowledge? If you define it as conscious information, then you are underestimating it's actual implication. Conscious information are basically by all means how we are able to operate and understand anything at all, without it we would be D-E-A-D. With it we are able to measure, process and why not output information, that's a reasonable paradigm to even think about thinking.


Now, as to my definition...

Yes, that's exactly it. Information and meaning are entirely subjective.
Didn't you just said that information is statements that can be answered yes and no to? That's not subjective at all.
For a system to extrapolate meaning from data, it must turn it into information. That information is specific to the system and the efficiency of the process can be defined by determining how much data is lost when it is interpreted. i.e. If I can interpret more meaning from a given set of data than you, I am more intelligent.
So, how do you measure this data loss then? HOW EXACTLY? How are you suppose to know what is unknown to you and what is not? Can you give me a simple explanation? Besides who am I then? How do you know if i'm conscious or not? Huh? Aren't we pretty much standing on the same ground?