Summations Only

Since that has already been answered several times, I still am at a loss about what you are asking.The blurring is when the critter can decide NOT to respond and the ability to make irrational, illogical and unreasonable decisions.You even quoted that.

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.

Asked and answered.Yes.

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.

Sorry, no dualism required.Once again, asked and answered.It is simply a matter of complexity and the capability to act in an unreasonable, irrational and illogical manner.It is simply the ability to NOT turn to face the sun.It really is that simple.

I would say that it is different. Intelligent species use abstractions to represent the world around them, and from those abstractions they predict the consequences of their actions. In this way an intelligent species is able to mold their actions so that the outcome of events benefits them in some way. This is not so with unintelligent species. They will always take the same actions, even if it is to their detriment.

It is all a matter of complexity.

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.

Yes, it is a matter of complexity which is lacking in a cell.It really is that simple.

Sorry but I simply do not believe you.Of course it involves more than just the laws of chemistry and physics.Once again, asked and answered.It really is that simple.

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?

Rocks, tides, etc are obeying to physical , chemical , electromagneting etc forces. These forces express their intelligence.

CELL seeing: it is how Buehler is referring about CELL INTELLIGENCE

Given that I haven't participated as Percy in over two days and nearly a hundred posts, I'm going to step in as moderator.I don't think meaningful progress can be made until there is agreement on the definition of "intelligence", but it is Zi Ko's definition that is in play, not other people's. If you take issue with any definition of intelligence then it must be his and not anyone else's.