|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nature's innate intelligence. Does it exist? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Asked and answered.
Yes. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10081 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3647 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
It is all a matter of complexity.
A human can decide whether or not to attach to another person, a hydrogen atom does not get to decide whether to attach to an oxygen atom.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
jar writes: It is simply the ability to NOT turn to face the sun. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Taq writes: I would say that it is different. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yes, it is a matter of complexity which is lacking in a cell.
It really is that simple.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: Sorry but I simply do not believe you. What don't you believe?
jar writes: Of course it involves more than just the laws of chemistry and physics. What else do you think is involved?
jar writes: Yes, it is a matter of complexity which is lacking in a cell. What does complexity have to do with human behaviour being any less a product of physics and chemistry than that of plants?
jar writes: Yes, it is a matter of complexity which is lacking in a cell. OK. But not all complex things are intelligent are they? So what aside from complexity qualifies something as "intelligent" rather than not?
jar writes: Once again, asked and answered. Rather than simply repeating this that why don't you try and be a bit more forthcoming?
jar writes: It really is that simple. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3647 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Are you only talking about nature as intelligent? Or are you saying that rocks, tides, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc are intelligent. You need to be clear about that.
Rocks, tides, etc are obeying to physical , chemical , electromagneting etc forces. These forces express their intelligence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3647 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
I think what he is trying to say is that a cell, although it doesn’t have intelligence of its own, (although I don’t know why he started talking about a cell seeing), does have intelligence uilt into its function.
CELL seeing: it is how Buehler is referring about CELL INTELLIGENCE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024