|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,461 Year: 3,718/9,624 Month: 589/974 Week: 202/276 Day: 42/34 Hour: 5/2 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nature's innate intelligence. Does it exist? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13018 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3641 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13018 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1526 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
zi ko writes:
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.Do you disagree with what 1.61802 says? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1526 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3641 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
1.61803 writes:
I couldn't work that out either. You seemed to mostly disagree.Hi NWR, I am not certain of what zi ko finds in my post that are in agreement with his OP. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1526 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1526 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hello NWR, if I may cite a article: I think you may find it interesting.
"The Emergence of Intelligence" Scientific American271(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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10044 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Look at some of what we consider intelligent:
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:
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? Why aren't there more species with such complex mental states?Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024