Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nature's innate intelligence. Does it exist?
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 136 of 303 (638213)
10-20-2011 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by nwr
10-20-2011 2:34 PM


Re: The Emergence of intelligence
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:
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).
I do not agree with the above statement though.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by nwr, posted 10-20-2011 2:34 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 137 of 303 (638247)
10-20-2011 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by GDR
10-18-2011 1:48 PM


Re: Devils Advocate...
GDR writes:
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.
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).
GDR writes:
Where is that intelligence if it isn't in our cells?
All the definitions of intelligence require many 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:
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?
You have almost answered your own question.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by GDR, posted 10-18-2011 1:48 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by GDR, posted 10-21-2011 12:00 AM Panda has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 138 of 303 (638250)
10-21-2011 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Panda
10-20-2011 9:42 PM


Re: Devils Advocate...
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:
But I don't think that determinism and intelligence are mutually exclusive.
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:
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Panda, posted 10-20-2011 9:42 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Panda, posted 10-21-2011 6:20 AM GDR has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 139 of 303 (638272)
10-21-2011 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by GDR
10-21-2011 12:00 AM


Re: Devils Advocate...
GDR writes:
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
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.
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.
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.
GDR writes:
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?
I don't really understand this question.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by GDR, posted 10-21-2011 12:00 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by GDR, posted 10-21-2011 10:53 AM Panda has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3620 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 140 of 303 (638281)
10-21-2011 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by New Cat's Eye
10-20-2011 9:55 AM


Re: Devils Advocate...
Intelligence requires a brain. Its not something that everything has.
Why are you using the word "intelligence"? What are you gaining by using it? Why don't you use a different word?
This is true when we are referring to intelligence in regular definition. B ut according to mine definition, brain is not necessary.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-20-2011 9:55 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-22-2011 1:00 PM zi ko has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3620 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 141 of 303 (638285)
10-21-2011 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by 1.61803
10-20-2011 11:09 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 evolutionsts
to 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by 1.61803, posted 10-20-2011 11:09 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by 1.61803, posted 10-21-2011 10:36 AM zi ko has not replied
 Message 155 by Taq, posted 10-21-2011 12:41 PM zi ko has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3620 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 142 of 303 (638287)
10-21-2011 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Straggler
10-20-2011 12:52 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Straggler, posted 10-20-2011 12:52 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Taq, posted 10-21-2011 12:38 PM zi ko has replied
 Message 156 by Straggler, posted 10-21-2011 12:50 PM zi ko has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3620 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 143 of 303 (638288)
10-21-2011 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by 1.61803
10-20-2011 1:14 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.
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by 1.61803, posted 10-20-2011 1:14 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by 1.61803, posted 10-21-2011 10:51 AM zi ko has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 144 of 303 (638289)
10-21-2011 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by zi ko
10-21-2011 10:01 AM


Re: Devils Advocate...
zi ko writes:
It seems to me rather obviously that anything comes (emerges?) from somethin else is at least about similar or relative to its predecessor.
This is simply incorrect. I may be relative to it's predecessor yes because that is what the term relative means.
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:
So intelligence coming from matter and universal laws, should somehow show some characteristics of matter and laws.
What characteristics does intelligence share with matter and the laws of physics?
zi ko writes:
These thoughts are surely not in line with regularly defined intelligence.
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.
zi ko writes:
I think the main desagreement lstems from the fear of current evolutionsts
to 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by zi ko, posted 10-21-2011 10:01 AM zi ko has not replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3620 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 145 of 303 (638290)
10-21-2011 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Taq
10-20-2011 2:17 PM


Re: Moderator Advisory
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Taq, posted 10-20-2011 2:17 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Straggler, posted 10-21-2011 1:05 PM zi ko has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 146 of 303 (638291)
10-21-2011 10:51 AM


Testing intelligence
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: 02-19-2004


Message 147 of 303 (638292)
10-21-2011 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by zi ko
10-21-2011 10:32 AM


Re: Devils Advocate...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by zi ko, posted 10-21-2011 10:32 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by zi ko, posted 10-21-2011 11:58 AM 1.61803 has replied
 Message 165 by zi ko, posted 10-22-2011 10:35 AM 1.61803 has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 148 of 303 (638293)
10-21-2011 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Panda
10-21-2011 6:20 AM


Re: Devils Advocate...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Panda, posted 10-21-2011 6:20 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by 1.61803, posted 10-21-2011 11:11 AM GDR has replied
 Message 158 by Panda, posted 10-21-2011 1:36 PM GDR has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 149 of 303 (638294)
10-21-2011 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by GDR
10-21-2011 10:53 AM


Re: Devils Advocate...
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"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by GDR, posted 10-21-2011 10:53 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by GDR, posted 10-21-2011 1:47 PM 1.61803 has seen this message but not replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3620 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 150 of 303 (638297)
10-21-2011 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by 1.61803
10-21-2011 10:51 AM


Re: Devils Advocate...
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by 1.61803, posted 10-21-2011 10:51 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by 1.61803, posted 10-21-2011 12:16 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