|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nature's innate intelligence. Does it exist? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hello NWR,
Your post reminds me of a quote: "Man is rated the highest animal, at least among all animals who returned the questionnaire." ~Robert Brault
NWR writes:
I do not agree with the above statement though. 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). None of the above is what we consider intelligent, except perhaps going to the moon which I personally think was a freakin awesome achievement for humanity. Human intelligence is like that thing said in Spiderman.With great power also comes great responsibilty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
GDR writes:
My answer to this relates to the discussion Straggler and Jar are having about determinism. A plant will always do the same thing. However, we are different. Without somebody telling us otherwise we would feel that it is fine to go out in the sun for long periods and would likely do so - once. Then we learn that even though our external inputs tell us it is good, it is actually bad for us. For us to learn not to do it again we not only need the memory of the first time but have to intelligently make a decision to get out of the sun to avoid sunburn.I see the brain as a learning computer. You have your initial programming (nature) and the additional programming from external stimuli (nurture). And, like a computer, when given a specific input you will give a specific output. But I am finding it difficult to think of a perfect example, because the act of testing someone's response to an input will change their programming and therefore their next response may not be the same. But to generalise: people always act in accordance with their nature (or programming). GDR writes:
All the definitions of intelligence require many cells. Where is that intelligence if it isn't in our cells? It is a good example of something being greater than the sum of its parts. The brain is not simply 1000's of unconnected cells - and neurons are unique in how they react to each other. But I don't think that determinism and intelligence are mutually exclusive.
GDR by PM writes:
You have almost answered your own question. My question then would be if intelligence is from a combination of many cells, but there is no intelligence within an individual cell, then where is that intelligence emerging from? Intelligence is an 'Emergent Property'.
http://www.stewdean.com/alife/emergence.html (This link actually mentions the brain.) http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=2008091406183... It is the same as a 'Y' shaped piece of wood and an elastic band are not - individually - weapons.But combine them and you have a hand-held catapult. If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Panda writes: My answer to this relates to the discussion Straggler and Jar are having about determinism.I see the brain as a learning computer. You have your initial programming (nature) and the additional programming from external stimuli (nurture). And, like a computer, when given a specific input you will give a specific output. But I am finding it difficult to think of a perfect example, because the act of testing someone's response to an input will change their programming and therefore their next response may not be the same. But to generalise: people always act in accordance with their nature (or programming). I just can't agree with this. I can't show objective evidence for not agreeing but I feel I'm on reasonable ground subjectively. For example I might be given advice on something about my behaviour. I might just as easily take offence or view it as good advice in which case I might make an attempt to modify my behaviour and I might or I might not be successful. Our moods which affect our decisions seem to change for no discernable reason, and that definitely affects our decisions. I agree that we can always make the argument that any decision that we make is the result of something that we were born with or were influenced by, but that just doesn't seem consistent with my life experience. JMHO
Panda writes:
With my minimal understanding of QM I think it is clear that we don't live in a deterministic world. However, I suppose you can say they aren't mutually exclusive but it seems to me that determinism would make intelligence unnecessary, and if that is true then why would intelligence have evolved in the first place.
But I don't think that determinism and intelligence are mutually exclusive. Panda writes: Intelligence is an 'Emergent Property'. It is the same as a 'Y' shaped piece of wood and an elastic band are not - individually - weapons.But combine them and you have a hand-held catapult. OK. But the sling shot combines the existing components of the wood and elastic band. What particular qualities do cells have that when combined form intelligence, and for that matter consciousness, as emergent properties? Part of the problem is again, as Percy has said that we lack a clear definition. It seems to me that stored information or intelligence that can be released would qualify as intelligence.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
GDR writes:
Our moods are caused by chemicals in our bodies. Our moods which affect our decisions seem to change for no discernable reason, and that definitely affects our decisions. I agree that we can always make the argument that any decision that we make is the result of something that we were born with or were influenced by, but that just doesn't seem consistent with my life experience. JMHOThey are another form of input to the brain. They are many many factors that could affect our decisions, but the complexity of the inputs does not negate determinism. GDR writes:
I was going to mention that in a previous post, but I decided it would just cloud the issue, as my knowledge of QM could be written on the back of a stamp with a crayon. But, I guess that QM could prove me wrong.
With my minimal understanding of QM I think it is clear that we don't live in a deterministic world. However, I suppose you can say they aren't mutually exclusive but it seems to me that determinism would make intelligence unnecessary, and if that is true then why would intelligence have evolved in the first place. GDR writes:
I don't really understand this question. OK. But the sling shot combines the existing components of the wood and elastic band. What particular qualities do cells have that when combined form intelligence, and for that matter consciousness, as emergent properties? Maybe if you could answer this question for me, I would see what kind of answer you want: What particular qualities does the wood and the elastic band have that when combined form a weapon? Edited by Panda, : No reason given.If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3620 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Intelligence requires a brain. Its not something that everything has.
This is true when we are referring to intelligence in regular definition. B ut according to mine definition, brain is not necessary. Why are you using the word "intelligence"? What are you gaining by using it? Why don't you use a different word? With same reason Shapiro and Buehler are using and with same meaning and because it fits with my theory. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3620 days) Posts: 578 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------It seems to me rather obviously that anything comes (emerges?) from somethin else is at least about similar or relative to its predecessor. So intelligence coming from matter and universal laws, should somehow show some characteristics of matter and laws. otherwise we are inevitably led to Supernatural solutions. These thoughts are surely not in line with regularly defined intelligence. I think the main desagreement lstems from the fear of current evolutionststo accept other definition about intelligence could shatter the basis of their favorit evolution theory. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3620 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
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.
I don't think cells "think". Just react intelligently, according to natural laws.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3620 days) Posts: 578 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.
I could agree with what you are sayng: Intelligence exists as a result of the physical laws of nature and denay that pysical laws are intelligent.This ithink could not change my proposition that there is innate intelligence in 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 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
zi ko writes: This is simply incorrect. I may be relative to it's predecessor yes because that is what the term relative means. It seems to me rather obviously that anything comes (emerges?) from somethin else is at least about similar or relative to its predecessor.But can you tell me what is similar between a acorn and a oak tree? Can you tell me what is similar between mushroom and yeast? zi ko writes: What characteristics does intelligence share with matter and the laws of physics?
So intelligence coming from matter and universal laws, should somehow show some characteristics of matter and laws. zi ko writes:
Thoughts that changing the definition of a word to suit ones particular point is no different than me saying: " Today I define black to mean blue." Words have meaning because of consensus.
These thoughts are surely not in line with regularly defined intelligence. zi ko writes: I think the main desagreement lstems from the fear of current evolutionststo accept other definition about intelligence could shutter the basis of their favorit evolution theory. No the main disagreement stems from changing the definition of intelligence to include everything and anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3620 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
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.
As i have answered to 1.61803 in post 143 , there is something that is not intelligent, the physical laws.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So we are in a forum dedicated to the question "Is it Science".
So the next step I would think would be for zi ko to present the experiment that could be used to test his so called theory.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
zi ko writes: This ithink could not change my proposition that there is innate intelligence in nature. If you believe that, then fine. But if you wish to show this is true you must present more convincing evidence than just saying it. Insane asylums are full of people who believe almost anything. If you said: The laws of nature and the way matter and energy manifest our universe is like it was behaving in a intelligent way. You would get no argument. Because you would be simply stating a opinion describing the laws of nature as intelligent. But No you are literally stating the laws of nature have innate intelligence. I have yet to see any evidence from you to support this claim. In fact your OP condenses to nothing more than saying everything has intelligence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Panda writes: Our moods are caused by chemicals in our bodies.They are another form of input to the brain. They are many many factors that could affect our decisions, but the complexity of the inputs does not negate determinism. No but the complexity does make determinism less likely. My mood can be affected by the moods of another person or persons, whose mood is affected by other person or persons ad infinitum. In addition it is then affected by weather, how much sleep I got, the comment someone made to me yesterday, my health etc. All these are in addition to your point about chemicals in the body.
GDR writes: With my minimal understanding of QM I think it is clear that we don't live in a deterministic world. However, I suppose you can say they aren't mutually exclusive but it seems to me that determinism would make intelligence unnecessary, and if that is true then why would intelligence have evolved in the first place.Panda writes: I was going to mention that in a previous post, but I decided it would just cloud the issue, as my knowledge of QM could be written on the back of a stamp with a crayon. But, I guess that QM could prove me wrong. Maybe someone who knows more about QM than we do could comment but I also want to repeat the point that determinism makes intelligence unnecessary and thus there would be no reason for it to evolve.
Panda writes: What particular qualities does the wood and the elastic band have that when combined form a weapon? The wood provides a base on which to anchor the potential energy of the elastic. In order for cells to be the basis for emerging intelligence they have to have properties that allow for that to happen. Do you consider stored information that can produce physical changes intelligence? For example I know that in order to carry on living that I must carry on breathing. I don't think about that I just do it. Does breathing require intelligence? Edited by GDR, : No reason given.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hi GDR,
GDR writes: Maybe someone who knows more about QM than we do could comment but I also want to repeat the point that determinism makes intelligence unnecessary and thus there would be no reason for it to evolve. Determinism is how our universe operates. The wave function propagates in a determistic fashion. Randomness and stoichastic behaviors of matter still operate in accordance to deterministic confines. Its just the way it all comes together depends on initial conditions which on a Quantum level are never the same. In regards to free will and choices and such it seems we have the ability to choose, but can not change the initial conditions of what has come before. Information in the universe can not be lost. Every atom and subatomic particle if given enough time will manifest our universe. And so it has, our universe is here and matter and energy has become senitient through the evolution of the human mind. Saying intelligence is unnecessary and thus has not reason to evolve is like saying the universe is unnecessary and has no reason to evolve either. The old Catholic Doctor Saint Thomas Aquinas had much to say about this" argument from necessity"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3620 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
No you are literally stating the laws of nature have innate intelligence.
But i had i accepted clearly that NATURAL LAWS ARE NOT INTELLIGENT.What do i need to say more?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024