Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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 151 of 303 (638302)
10-21-2011 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by zi ko
10-21-2011 11:58 AM


Re: Devils Advocate...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by zi ko, posted 10-21-2011 11:58 AM zi ko has not replied

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


Message 152 of 303 (638303)
10-21-2011 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Taq
10-17-2011 11:53 AM


You use such a broad definition of intelligence that it is reduced to nothing.
I give to the word intelligence the meaning Shapiro and Buhler give.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Taq, posted 10-17-2011 11:53 AM Taq has not replied

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


Message 153 of 303 (638305)
10-21-2011 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by zi ko
10-17-2011 11:53 AM


Re: innate intelligence
McClintock quotes are describing qualities to cells using grandiose terms that don't really apply
She is a Nobel price winner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by zi ko, posted 10-17-2011 11:53 AM zi ko has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 154 of 303 (638306)
10-21-2011 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by zi ko
10-21-2011 10:10 AM


I don't think cells "think". Just react intelligently, according to natural laws.
How do you determine if a reaction is intelligent or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by zi ko, posted 10-21-2011 10:10 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by zi ko, posted 10-23-2011 12:40 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 155 of 303 (638307)
10-21-2011 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by zi ko
10-21-2011 10:01 AM


Re: Devils Advocate...
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.
Why do you need to redefine intelligence to begin with? If you have to redefine intelligence then it tells me that what you are describing as intelligent is nothing of the kind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by zi ko, posted 10-21-2011 10:01 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by zi ko, posted 10-23-2011 12:34 PM Taq has replied

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


Message 156 of 303 (638310)
10-21-2011 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by zi ko
10-21-2011 10:10 AM


Ziko writes:
I don't think cells "think".
Then how can they be intelligent?
Taq writes:
Can you describe something that is not intelligent?
Ziko writes:
Not really.
Then you have rendered the term entirely meaningless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by zi ko, posted 10-21-2011 10:10 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by zi ko, posted 10-23-2011 12:25 PM Straggler has not replied

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


Message 157 of 303 (638312)
10-21-2011 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by zi ko
10-21-2011 10:47 AM


Re: Moderator Advisory
Ziko writes:
As i have answered to 1.61803 in post 143 , there is something that is not intelligent, the physical laws.
I see you have changed your mind. Good for you.
Now can you explain how a rock is intelligent but gravity isn't?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by zi ko, posted 10-21-2011 10:47 AM zi ko has not replied

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


Message 158 of 303 (638317)
10-21-2011 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by GDR
10-21-2011 10:53 AM


Re: Devils Advocate...
GDR writes:
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.
Yes, I agree with the almost infinite amount of 'inputs'.
But Determinism is completely unaffected by either simplicity or complexity. It is neither more nor less likely in a complex system.
One form of Determinism is Necessitarianism:
quote:
Necessitarianism is a metaphysical principle that denies all mere possibility; there is exactly one way for the world to be. It is the strongest member of a family of principles, including hard determinism, each of which deny free will, reasoning that human actions are predetermined by external or internal antecedents.
It is worth reading Wiki: Determinism as it goes into a lot more detail than I can.
GDR writes:
...I also want to repeat the point that determinism makes intelligence unnecessary and thus there would be no reason for it to evolve.
Natural Selection favours apes with brains.
Our brains evolved because mutations occurred to our ape ancestors.
The mutations occurred because of ambient radiation.
Ambient radiation existed because of how the earth was formed.
etc...
There is no 'necessity' involved.
GDR writes:
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.
Neurons can make and break connections to other neurons creating different electro-chemical pathways through our brains. This results in giving us abilities that we class as 'intelligence' (e.g. problem solving, reasoning, learning, etc.).
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
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 148 by GDR, posted 10-21-2011 10:53 AM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Straggler, posted 10-21-2011 1:54 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 159 of 303 (638320)
10-21-2011 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by 1.61803
10-21-2011 11:11 AM


Re: Devils Advocate...
1.61803 writes:
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.
Thanks for the explanation. My credentials in this area are from reading Brian Greene and similar books so be advised I'm in way over my head.
It seems to me that QM argues against a deterministic world on this basis. Particles don't become the way we perceive them until we perceive them and also the history’s created that allows for our perception. Doesn't this negate a deterministic world?
1.61803 writes:
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 first line from wiki re determinism says this:
quote:
Determinism is the general philosophical thesis that states that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen.
It just seems to me that if from the start in a deterministic world where all actions are pre-determined by the previous conditions then I see no reason for intelligence to evolve. I agree with you that we do have the ability to choose and that the world isn't deterministic so intelligence does provide an advantage and makes evolutionary sense.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by 1.61803, posted 10-21-2011 11:11 AM 1.61803 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Straggler, posted 10-21-2011 2:16 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 160 of 303 (638321)
10-21-2011 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Panda
10-21-2011 1:36 PM


Re: Devils Advocate...
Just a quick note on Quantum Mechanics and determinism - QM results in probabalistic outcomes rather than definite ones. In that sense it is "indeterminate". But that hardly supports the sort of dualistic freewill undetermined by chemistry and physics that seems to being proposed as an indicator of "intelligence" by some here. Cause and effect still apply. Quantum determinism just has an inherently probabalistic component.
Secondly - Re the evolution of intelliigence - Given the unpredictable nature of reality (which is not the same as it being indeterminate - just too complex to actually accurately predict) - Entities that can adapt, plan, sense etc. obviously have a survival advantage over ones that cannot.
Thirdly - On human (and human-like) intelligence - I was looking at a interview with Dan Dennett recently where he posited the phrase "It seemed like a good idea at the time" as encompassing all of the main hallmarks of conscious intelligence. Self awareness. Awareness of alternative conceptual possibilities. Decision making capabilities. Memory. Foresight. The ability to modify future behaviour based on past experience (i.e. learn). Etc.
If (he posits) we can ever build an Artificially Intelligent machine that can express the phrase "It seemed like a good idea at the time" and that actually means it then we will have created human-like conscious intelligence. Not entirely relevant here. But I found it kinda interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Panda, posted 10-21-2011 1:36 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 161 of 303 (638325)
10-21-2011 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by GDR
10-21-2011 1:47 PM


Re: Devils Advocate...
GDR writes:
It seems to me that QM argues against a deterministic world on this basis.
If you think that QM rescues common conceptions of freewill in some sense think again. Instead QM results in random rather than entirely predictable behaviour.
But it no more facilitates the sort of dualistic conscious-mind-agency of the sort I suspect you are advocating than more fixed versions of determinacy.
It just makes your behaviour randomly deterministic rather than entirely fixed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by GDR, posted 10-21-2011 1:47 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by GDR, posted 10-21-2011 9:44 PM Straggler has not replied

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


Message 162 of 303 (638386)
10-21-2011 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Straggler
10-21-2011 2:16 PM


Re: Devils Advocate...
Straggler writes:
If you think that QM rescues common conceptions of freewill in some sense think again. Instead QM results in random rather than entirely predictable behaviour.
If the results are random then I think that's a pretty strong indicator that consciousnes of whatever kind, dictates the outcome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Straggler, posted 10-21-2011 2:16 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Panda, posted 10-22-2011 7:13 AM GDR has replied

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


Message 163 of 303 (638435)
10-22-2011 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by GDR
10-21-2011 9:44 PM


Re: Devils Advocate...
GDR writes:
If the results are random then I think that's a pretty strong indicator that consciousnes of whatever kind, dictates the outcome.
To quote Wiki: (Emphasis mine)
quote:
Adequate determinism is the idea that quantum indeterminacy can be ignored for most macroscopic events. This is because of quantum decoherence. Random quantum events "average out" in the limit of large numbers of particles (where the laws of quantum mechanics asymptotically approach the laws of classical mechanics). Stephen Hawking explains a similar idea: he says that the microscopic world of quantum mechanics is one of determined probabilities. That is, quantum effects rarely alter the predictions of classical mechanics, which are quite accurate (albeit still not perfectly certain) at larger scales. Something as large as an animal cell, then, would be "adequately determined" (even in light of quantum indeterminacy).
If quantum indeterminacy affected larger events then wouldn't everything be random?
Objects would appear and disappear; pens would fall up or down; nothing could be anticipated.
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 162 by GDR, posted 10-21-2011 9:44 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by GDR, posted 10-22-2011 10:17 AM Panda has replied

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


Message 164 of 303 (638450)
10-22-2011 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Panda
10-22-2011 7:13 AM


Re: Devils Advocate...
Panda writes:
If quantum indeterminacy affected larger events then wouldn't everything be random?
Objects would appear and disappear; pens would fall up or down; nothing could be anticipated.
I'm probably seriously out of my depth here but I'll respond
anyway.
I would think that quantum indeterminacy functions within the framework of natural laws.
When I checked wiki it seems that there are several different ideas on what people mean by determinism.
Aside from that though is anyone suggesting that I don't have a choice about what I'm posting right now as it was all determined?

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Panda, posted 10-22-2011 7:13 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Panda, posted 10-22-2011 12:16 PM GDR has not replied

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


Message 165 of 303 (638451)
10-22-2011 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by 1.61803
10-21-2011 10:51 AM


Re: Devils Advocate...
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.
I s it so inessential to say that everything has a kind of intelligence, as i have defined it in advance, if this is my belief?
About evidence: I do not intent to give all the answers and the evidences (!!!!) of it for all the key questions of life appearance. I am satisfied that CDR agrees with existance of innate intelligence and you and Stragler say that there is a rudimentary intelligence even in no brained animals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by 1.61803, posted 10-21-2011 10:51 AM 1.61803 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Percy, posted 10-22-2011 11:08 AM zi ko has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024