Summations Only

I think ziko is playing a game of definitional dimwittedness of epic proprtions. But having said that.....I am going to ask a devils advocate question that you can choose to pursue or ignore as you see fit.Are brain cells any different to what you have described above? Don't they obey the laws of physics? Can they behave in any other way? If NOT being restricted by these things is the criteria for "intelligence" then can we really say that our brains, and thus we, are "intelligent"....?

OK. But to "think" requires a brain of some sort does it not?In what sense do cells "think".....?
Is my computer "thinking" as it responds to my keyboard inputs?
Are pebbles "thinking" as they respond to gravity or any other forces applied to them?If you are going to say that cells "think" then you need to provide some sort of dividing line between that which "thinks" and that which doesn't and explain your reasons for drawing that boundary.

Fair enough.So what is?If human brains result in "intelligence" but individual cells don't what is it that we mean by "intelligence" in this context?I am not agreeing with (loony) Ziko. Just trying to prompt those who oppose him to think about what it is they actually mean.....

Well consider yourself kicked!!At which point I will leave you and others to confront ziko's particular brand of silliness.

OK. How?Isn't it just a mass of cells responding to stimuli and acting oit the laws of physics?In what way (to pursue my devils advocate stance) is it not just a more complex variant of plants involuntarily turning towards the Sun?

I'll grant you that the range of inputs a brain can respond to is greater than those that the motion of a plant can respond to.But is the human brain any more capable of doing something other than deterministically responding to inputs and obeying the laws of physics than the plant is?Given a specific set of inputs is the human brain any more capable of doing otherwise than the plant is when confronted with it's very basic input?Is intelligence just the unpredictability borne of increased complexity?

Well a number of people seem to be saying that the plant isn't displaying intelligence because it is simply responding to stimuli as a result of chemistry and physics.So I am asking - Is the human brain any more capable of doing something other than deterministically responding to inputs and obeying the laws of chemistry and physics than the plant is? Are insects "intelligent"...? Worms? Rhombozoans? Jellyfish? Cats?It seems obvious that humans are intelligent and cells aren't (well..maybe not to Zi ko) so I am asking what criteria are we applying to qualify something as "intelligent" or not.Where is the boundary? And if it is blurred (as I would argue it is) what is the nature of the blurring?

Yes - But I am trying to find out what you mean.Do you think that given a specific set of inputs a human is free to take more than one course of action in a way that the plant is not?That humans are essentially non-deterministic in a way that plants are not.

OK. Then we seem to have established that your view of "intelligence" seems to require some form of dualism.I am not sure that this is much more evidentially justifiable than Ziko's notion that cells have intelligence.But there you go.

How are you getting non-determinism from complexity?The laws of chemistry and physics are deterministic are they not? If the human brain is a physical system following the laws of chemistry and physics then a specific set of circumstances will lead to a predetermined outcome. Deterministically speaking whether you turn to face the Sun or not depends on a chain of events prior to you even existing.So unless you are invoking something other than the laws of chemistry and physics it is highly debatable as to whether you do have this ability in the way that you seem to mean.The complexity just makes it less predictable than the plant. Not any less determined.

I would certainly agree that it is different. Ziko's assertion that cells are "intelligent" is just an exercise is silly semantics with which I suspect he has confused even himself.But having said that - The idea that something lacks intelligence just because it is responding to stimuli and acting in accordance with the laws of physics is also a non-starter.

What don't you believe? What else do you think is involved? What does complexity have to do with human behaviour being any less a product of physics and chemistry than that of plants? OK. But not all complex things are intelligent are they? So what aside from complexity qualifies something as "intelligent" rather than not? Rather than simply repeating this that why don't you try and be a bit more forthcoming? Actually the question of what is intelligent and what isn't is not a simple question at all. So perhaps this is where you are going wrong here?

Can we get an IQ score for gravity?

Define clever......It was a somewhat facetious question because you ignored my previous questions. Here they are again. Originally posted Message 60To "think" requires a brain of some sort does it not?In what sense do cells "think".....?
Is my computer "thinking" as it responds to my keyboard inputs?
Are pebbles "thinking" as they respond to gravity or any other forces applied to them?If you are going to say that cells "think" then you need to provide some sort of dividing line between that which "thinks" and that which doesn't and explain your reasons for drawing that boundary.

Then how can they be intelligent? Then you have rendered the term entirely meaningless.