Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nature's innate intelligence. Does it exist?
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 121 of 303 (638143)
10-20-2011 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by zi ko
10-20-2011 1:11 AM


Moderator Advisory
Hi Zi Ko,
I had assumed that you would be refining your definition of intelligence from Message 1, but if you're instead expanding it to be a universal property that something possesses simply by reason of existence then I do not think this a worthwhile topic of discussion. This exchange has me concerned:
Taq in Message 114 writes:
Can you describe something that is not intelligent?
zi ko writes:
Not really.
If by this you mean that everything that exists has intelligence, as others have begun to suspect, then I will immediately begin the thread closure process and ask participants to submit summaries.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by zi ko, posted 10-20-2011 1:11 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by zi ko, posted 10-20-2011 9:21 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 122 of 303 (638149)
10-20-2011 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Admin
10-20-2011 8:36 AM


Re: Moderator Advisory
If by this you mean that everything that exists has intelligence, as others have begun to suspect, then I will immediately begin the thread closure process and ask participants to submit summaries.
What do you expect me to say? Ihave given all the definitions i was assked for and i am eager to give more if i am asked. You do as you wish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Admin, posted 10-20-2011 8:36 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Taq, posted 10-20-2011 2:17 PM zi ko has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 303 (638154)
10-20-2011 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by zi ko
10-20-2011 1:07 AM


Re: Devils Advocate...
You seem to agree with above. Then can you say what is your difference with what i had been saying all the time?
Because what you have been sayin all the time is pure nonsense. You've redefined "intelligence" into meaninglessness. Your writing is vague and confused, but obviously incorrect.
Then can you say what is your difference with what i had been saying all the time?
Intelligence requires a brain. Its not something that everything has.
You nevered answered my questions though:
Why are you using the word "intelligence"? What are you gaining by using it? Why don't you use a different word?
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by zi ko, posted 10-20-2011 1:07 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by zi ko, posted 10-21-2011 9:29 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 124 of 303 (638159)
10-20-2011 10:22 AM


Moderator Advisory: Slight Change of Topic
Rather than beginning the thread closure process, I think it might be worthwhile to bless as the official topic what people are already discussing. Instead of discussing whether nature has innate intelligence this thread should discuss the validity of Zi Ko's definition of intelligence. In Zi Ko's definition, everything has intelligence, and he clearly doesn't understand why this isn't a useful definition.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 125 of 303 (638167)
10-20-2011 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by zi ko
10-20-2011 1:54 AM


Re: Devils Advocate...
1.61083 writes:
The fact that a plant cant plan ahead and a human can means we are intelligent and they are not. It does not mean the laws of nature have a inherent "innate" intelligence. It means given the right conditions and enough time a thing called intelligence can eventually emerge. Intelligence may simply be a emergent property of matter
I think your initial premise of single cells having intelligence and tides , the laws of physics having innate intelligence is a bit misguided. Although I do understand the gist of what you mean.
I believe your redefining Intelligence is the crux of the disagreement.
It does seem fantastic the sublime way nature perpetuates matter and energy into life seems in some sense intelligent. Intelligent by way of meaning humans often are amazed by the seemingly elegant way nature maintains homeostasis. But it is not to say it is intelligent by way of a thinking mind. Rather intelligent by way of a metaphor to describe it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by zi ko, posted 10-20-2011 1:54 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by zi ko, posted 10-21-2011 10:01 AM 1.61803 has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 126 of 303 (638176)
10-20-2011 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by zi ko
10-20-2011 1:41 AM


zi ko writes:
Do you disagree with what 1.61802 says?
I agree with part of what 1.61803 says -- particularly with what he says in Message 125, but I don't agree with everything he posted.
Your problem remains, that you have failed to give a clear enough meaning for "intelligence" and without that the discussion is too unfocussed.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by zi ko, posted 10-20-2011 1:41 AM zi ko has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by 1.61803, posted 10-20-2011 11:46 AM nwr has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 127 of 303 (638178)
10-20-2011 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by nwr
10-20-2011 11:34 AM


Hi NWR, I am not certain of what zi ko finds in my post that are in agreement with his OP. I basically am saying the same thing everyone else seems to be. But for the record I am of the opinion that intelligence requires a thinking brain of some sort. Otherwise the organism is reacting to external stimuli and not "conscious" of its actions. Fungal ant brain infestations resulting in the perpetuation of the fungus included.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by nwr, posted 10-20-2011 11:34 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by nwr, posted 10-20-2011 1:07 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 128 of 303 (638186)
10-20-2011 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by 1.61803
10-19-2011 3:03 PM


Re: Devils Advocate...
Hi Straggler, I agree with you. You just condensed what I have been thinking. If plants and humans are subject to the same physics, then it stands to reason at some level this phenomenon of intelligence appears. It seems tied to the complexity and development of a brain and nervous system. The ability to have sensory input of our surroundings. The playing field is level, we and other organisms just happen to have better evolved equipment perhaps.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I entirely agree. My intelligence definition of course does not imply any thinking or cosciousness It is a physical act,and as it is physical it stems out of physical lows, that are the same to organic and inorganic matter. As these laws lead to intelligence, as it usually is ment, then these laws have something of intelligence. Is that so terrible to be understood, and if accepted to be subject of intellectual terrorism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by 1.61803, posted 10-19-2011 3:03 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by 1.61803, posted 10-20-2011 1:14 PM zi ko has replied
 Message 135 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-20-2011 2:45 PM zi ko has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 129 of 303 (638190)
10-20-2011 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by zi ko
10-19-2011 3:04 PM


Ziko writes:
Is it supposed to be a" clever" question?
Define clever......
It was a somewhat facetious question because you ignored my previous questions. Here they are again. Originally posted Message 60
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by zi ko, posted 10-19-2011 3:04 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by zi ko, posted 10-21-2011 10:10 AM Straggler has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 130 of 303 (638197)
10-20-2011 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by 1.61803
10-20-2011 11:46 AM


1.61803 writes:
Hi NWR, I am not certain of what zi ko finds in my post that are in agreement with his OP.
I couldn't work that out either. You seemed to mostly disagree.
The place where I disagree with you, is your use of "emergence". I don't mind saying something emerged, but I take that as meaning that more explanation is required. It wasn't clear to me how you were intending that reference to emergence to be taken.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by 1.61803, posted 10-20-2011 11:46 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by 1.61803, posted 10-20-2011 1:37 PM nwr has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 131 of 303 (638198)
10-20-2011 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by zi ko
10-20-2011 12:40 PM


Re: Devils Advocate...
In the cited quotes of Straggler and myself; all we are saying is basically intelligence exist as a result of the physical laws of nature.
NOT the physical laws of nature are intelligent.
Do you see the distinction? If not then you will not understand what is wrong with your premise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by zi ko, posted 10-20-2011 12:40 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by zi ko, posted 10-21-2011 10:32 AM 1.61803 has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 132 of 303 (638201)
10-20-2011 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by nwr
10-20-2011 1:07 PM


The Emergence of intelligence
Hello NWR, if I may cite a article: I think you may find it interesting.
"The Emergence of Intelligence"
Scientific American
271(4):100-107, October 1994 (December in translation editions),
the Life in the Universe special issue.
William H. Calvin writes:
Why aren't there more species with such complex mental states? There might be a hump to get over: a little intelligence can be a dangerous thing. A beyond-the-apes intelligence must constantly navigate between the twin hazards of dangerous innovation and a conservatism that ignores what the Red Queen explained to Alice in Through the Looking Glass: "...it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place." Foresight is our special form of running, essential for the intelligent stewardship that Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University warns is needed for longer-term survival: "We have become, by the power of a glorious evolutionary accident called intelligence, the stewards of life's continuity on earth. We did not ask for this role, but we cannot abjure it. We may not be suited to it, but here we are."
http://williamcalvin.com/1990s/1994SciAmer.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by nwr, posted 10-20-2011 1:07 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by nwr, posted 10-20-2011 2:34 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 133 of 303 (638205)
10-20-2011 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by zi ko
10-20-2011 9:21 AM


Re: Moderator Advisory
What do you expect me to say?
That is about what we expected you to say. Your definition of "intelligence" is so broad that it can include ANYTHING. When a definition is this broad it becomes useless because you can not differentiate between what is and is not intelligent.
Imagine if I made the claim that everything was blue. You show me an apple and I say that it is blue. You point to the sun and I also claim that this is blue. You ask me if the electromagnetic waves coming from a radio tower are blue, and I say that they are. As it turns out, I have redefined blue so that it is consistent with any wavelength of EM energy. Would you consider my redefinition of blue to be a fair one?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by zi ko, posted 10-20-2011 9:21 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by zi ko, posted 10-21-2011 10:47 AM Taq has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 134 of 303 (638206)
10-20-2011 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by 1.61803
10-20-2011 1:37 PM


Re: The Emergence of intelligence
Look at some of what we consider intelligent:
  • We have squandered the fossil fuel reserves that we have discovered;
  • we have acidified the ocean and damaged fisheries;
  • we have destroyed forests;
  • we have allowed the human population to rise to a level that will be difficult to sustain without further damage to our habitat;
  • we have put men on the moon (which does not do anything to help feed the population).
My point is that what we consider intelligence is very much a social/cultural adaptation. What we consider to be intelligent looks intelligent from inside our culture, but if you try to examine what it looks like from outside our culture then maybe it isn't so intelligent after all.
William Calvin writes:
Why aren't there more species with such complex mental states?
Do we even know this? As far as I can tell, most of what we know about human mental states comes from philosophy rather than from science. And what about other intensely social species such as prairie dogs, naked mole rats, social ants? Can we be sure that they don't have complex mental states?

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by 1.61803, posted 10-20-2011 1:37 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by 1.61803, posted 10-20-2011 2:59 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 303 (638209)
10-20-2011 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by zi ko
10-20-2011 12:40 PM


Re: Devils Advocate...
My intelligence definition of course does not imply any thinking or cosciousness It is a physical act,and as it is physical it stems out of physical lows, that are the same to organic and inorganic matter. As these laws lead to intelligence, as it usually is ment, then these laws have something of intelligence.
Well this is a significantly different position than the one in the OP, but wrong nonetheless.
Physical laws leading to certain actions cannot, themselves, be subject to those actions that depend on the laws. For the laws are required and the actions cannot be precluded from them.
That is, physical laws leading to intelligence cannot be from intelligence, themselves, because the intelligence requires the physical laws in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by zi ko, posted 10-20-2011 12:40 PM zi ko has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024