Intellect or data processor?

The debate eternal rallies around how do we define intelligence vs intellect. A computer is programed by a human, but is able to process data at a much faster rate that said human. Does this mean that the computer is in fact more intelligent than the human programmer? If that were the case, then the computer could in fact program itself. Now, we know that computers generally cannot program themselves, (but this is not to suggest that computers cannot one day be programmed to learn and adapt to new data input) but does self programming equate to intelligence? I guess a better question is, do we measure data processing speed in terms of intelligence? 

I suggest that data processing speed is in reality a measure of intelligence as we now define it. Intellect on the other hand is more along the lines of the ability to make deductions based upon a predefined set of data. What would we define the ability to deduce from data that is incomplete? How do we define the ability to imagine missing pieces of data? Beyond the obvious pattern suddoko puzzle. How do we define that part of our human mind that make deductions through the ‘art’ of vision? This is neither critical thinking, nor a subset of the intelligence quotient.

Another concept which computers just cannot be programmed to grasp is emotional quotient. The ability to determine a person’s action based upon their emotional mindset at the time of making the decision. People make decisions not only based on the facts at their disposal, but also as a result of training, cultural context, emotional make up and a variety of other factors that a programmed machine can never really figure out. Just ask any husband why his wife chose one handbag over another and you will get that same response from a machine. In the old pin ball machines the lighted ‘tilt’ sign shows up on the face of said husband.

Just last week (Feb 2011) a computer (Watson) beat out two of the top Jeopardy players in the country, but was unable to demonstrate any of the emotional signs of this success. It can very well be argued that the machine is well able to process data at a faster rate than its human counterparts, but  it has no ability to determine human action or respond accordingly.

My thought is this. We are going to have to redefine intelligence. Our present definition is flawed, and with computers processing faster than the human mind - we run the risk of all being classified as idiots soon.