|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nature's innate intelligence. Does it exist? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 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 3649 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Can we get an IQ score for gravity? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Is it supposed to be a" clever" question?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
You seem to agree with above. Then can you say what is your difference with what i had been saying all the time?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Not really.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Hi Catholic Scientist, I look at things in a sort of "its all one stuff."
------------------------------------------------------------attitude. The carbon in sugars of plants is the same carbon we exhale as the same carbon in coal. Now all these things are distinct things with distinct properties but everything is composed of atoms and subject to the laws of physics and intitial conditions. 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. Maybe. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 agree with you, I was kinda just springboarding off what you had said. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SO if you agree withabove how can you disagree so intensely with me?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Then I think you have reduced the word "intelligence" to meaninglessness. So this thread really isn't about anything at all.
Do you disagree with what 1.61802 says?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
OK. Then we seem to have established that your view of "intelligence" seems to require some form of dualism.
So you disagree wit Jar and me. 1.61802 agrees with you. I agree with 1.61802. DO we understand each other?I am not sure that this is much more evidentially justifiable than Ziko's notion that cells have intelligence. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 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 3649 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 3649 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 3649 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024