Summations Only

This requires some translation. I think you're asking the rhetorical question, "What's wrong with me believing everything has intelligence as I defined it?"I don't see anything wrong with you believing whatever you want to believe as long as it doesn't bring harm to others. If all you wanted to do was let us know what you believe then you didn't need an entire thread to do that, but presumably you started this thread to convince other people, and for that you need evidence, of which you appear to have none. I, too, believe intelligence isn't limited solely to humans, but I don't define intelligence the way you do (neither do GDR, Straggler and 1.61803, nor likely anyone else), plus I have evidence for what I believe. You say you are satisfied, but you've produced no evidence, and you haven't convinced anyone of anything. You haven't even put forward anything anyone believes makes sense.--Percy

Unfortunately, I am definitely out of my depth.
In regard to QM I can do little more than quote web-pages and take a stab at what they mean. I would think so too. But then what effect does it have? (I don't know.) Yes. There seems to be an over-arching concept of Determinism and also several 'more specific' versions. (I am not sure which 'that' we are 'aside') but I am definitely suggesting that your reply was inevitable due to the 'programming' your brain had received up to the point when you clicked 'Submit Reply'.Most people are happy with the concept of "cause and effect" (skipping over the god stuff for this thread).
But people are then confident that their choices can be random and uncaused.
But if people truly made random choices then Derren Brown would be out of a job. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

But that makes your definition stupid. There's nothing admirable about making up a new definition for a word so that you can makes silly claims with it. No, you're not using the same meaning that they use. Quote them defining the word, or using it in context, and put it next to your definition and I'll show you the difference.And what is the reason Shapiro and Bueler use it?Finally, you've redifined the word to fit within your theory idea. That's doing it wrong. You should change the phrasing in your idea to use corect terminology and commonly accepted definitions. If your idea is wrong, you don't change the definitions of the words it uses as an attempt to correct it. That dishonest and pathetic.

But what about to non brainers? Not exactly. I wanted to stress that my belief was a radical one that needs at least attention. On this area- borders of mysteries and life appearance , expecting evidence is hyperbolic. Somebody can talk only about beliefs and he has only very few choices. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

From Guenter Albrecht-Buehler and Robert Laughlin Rea work on :CELL INTELLIGENCE
CELL INTELLIGENCE is the title of the work. see OP. did you read my definition? Show me please where the stupidity is.

Why does it need attention?

Since you're using a made-up definition of intelligence while I'm using the standard definition, what difference does it make which non-humans I think are intelligent? Incredibly, you expressed encouragement that Straggler and 1.6 agreed with you that it isn't only humans that can display intelligence when you're not even using the same definition. I only mentioned my position to indicate that I share their definition of intelligence and their position that it isn't only humans that can display intelligence.You're using a definition of intelligence that makes no sense, and you're claiming agreement by people who don't share your definition of intelligence. We're trying to discuss nature's innate intelligence with you, but it looks like we're going to spend most of our time trying to explain why nothing about your position makes any sense.--Percy

This is all just woo repackaged as 'intelligence" or "empathy" in a vain attempt to make the universe more interesting for people who are interested in woo.Some people seem to need the universe to be other than what it is and are blind to the grandure of reality (if it does not conform to their ideals).When asked to substantiate their claims (as I predicted in the case of Zi ko) they have nothing to bring; that is the reason the more rational creos don't last long here.Sorry, I'm feeling a bit disenchanted.Edited by Larni, : Bizarre formatting.

IT is your opinion. You disagree with my definition, but you should know that specifically on ths issue there are so many definitions on the term of intelligence.

I t is not me that i say that a new definition is needed, but hard Darwinians and follwers of current theory.

In life area if it it is intenting tomaintain life.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you believe is the correct definition of intelligence (ther are too many) and what is your evidence?

Hi Zi Ko,You cannot reason people into a position where reason played no role when it somehow persuaded you.So, you know, if you're not going to post any evidence or arguments for your position, if you're just going to post arguments from authority, if you're just going to post one sentence messages, if you're not even going to bother with reason, spelling, grammar, punctuation or even spacing, maybe you could, oh, I don't know, stop posting?--Percy

What is your choice for intelligent definition (there are so many), and why do i have to agree with you on this issue?

Look, Zi Ko, could you at least say something that makes sense? You claim there are too many definitions of the word intelligence, yet you think the solution is to make up yet another?Do you know how many definitions of "run" there are at Answers.com? 41.Do you know how many definitions of "intelligence" there are at Answers.com? 8.Do you know how many are relevant to this discussion? 2 or 3.Too many definitions? Sheesh!Zi Ko, are you going to make an effort here, or are you going to continue barely being able to get through a sentence without making silly errors. It's no wonder you creationists never participate in the same thread, you've all got your own individual brand of stupid.--Percy