|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nature's innate intelligence. Does it exist? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3647 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
This is no different than water using its engrained intelligence to sort particles by density and size
Hi Taq,it reminds me saying that everythink has a rudimentary "intelligence"! Do you realise that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Well, you can't very well have an unconscious decision, can you?
Either some intentional choice is made or there is no decision making process taking place. That would be my position: there is no decision being made; simply inevitable, mechanical processess. No need for decisions, intelligence or intentional activity. Do I win 5 pounds? Abe:
it reminds me saying that everythink has a rudimentary "intelligence"! Do you realise that? Taq is pointing this out to show how stupid the idea is, not to lend support the idea that everything is intelligent, obviously. Edited by Larni, : No reason given.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3647 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
The anticipation in Perkins and Swain's paper is in terms of a predicted future environment based on the current environment. There is no planning or forethought involved, rather the cell has a particular set of responses to a particular set of environmental triggers which tend to precede an environmental change.
Nobody has been talking about "planning or forethought". It seems there is no diversity of opinions about "innate intelligence" in this thread! Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
It is your vague approach to the word intelligence that is causing others to take your meaning in various ways.
You're rubbish at communication: that is the problem.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Well Shadow71, who is who that reply was directed at, was. If you look at the post to which it was a reply, Message 263, you will see they say ...
Shadow71 writes: That of course reinforces my position that their is direction or planning in the process of evolultion, controlled by some type of "intelligence" in the cellular process. So you may well be in disagreement with Shadow on this but there is someone who is talking about planning.
It seems there is no diversity of opinions about "innate intelligence" in this thread! I agree, there are only 2 camps, those who adhere to some definition of intelligence as it is usually understood and you and Shadow (and Shapiro outside of this thread) who wish to redefine the term to such an extent as to make it into something completely unlike intelligence as it is usually understood and so broad as to encompass virtually anything. TTFN, WK Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Zi Ko,
I was offline for a few days when this was posted, so I'm only responding now.
zi ko writes: Instinct evolves in the same way that all characteristics of life evolve, through genomic change driven by the remixing of existing alleles (via conjugation in asexual species) and by mutations, all filtered by natural selection.
It seems to me your theory is very poor to explain the comlexities of instincts. I am curious. is there an y evidence that a mutation has coused a specific instinct change? Or is there any special genome loci that directly correlates with a particular instinct? You're asking questions about how evidence evolution affects instinct, yet you've already concluded that evolution poorly explains instinct? Aren't you putting the cart before the horse? You wanted to know how instinct evolves, I told you. If you want specific details then I suggest you look them up instead of asking others to do your research for you, research that must precede the drawing of conclusions.
A long-term domestication experiment with foxes in the Soviet Union revealed that over just a few generations wild foxes will become tame and and much more dog-like in their behavior, even wagging their tails. It apparently doesn't take very much selection to change instinctual behavior.
Your experiment proves the exact opposit! That learning is a powerful way to evolution. Was there any any mutation and so any evidenced genome change in the foxes? Except that there wasn't any learning going on, see the Wikipedia article on the Domesticated Silver Fox. The foxes weren't being taught to behave in a domestic fashion. Rather, foxes were selected for breeding on the basis of qualities associated with domesticity, and in this way successive generations of foxes became increasingly domesticated. Learning had nothing to do with it. It would indeed be wonderful if we were born knowing what had been learned by our parents, but what is learned by one generation is not inherited by the next. DNA is the vehicle of inheritance, and anything not committed to DNA is not passed on. What we learn is stored in our brain, not our DNA. What is learned during any organism's life time is lost when it dies. There is no evidence that evolution is driven by neural systems. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3647 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Well, you can't very well have an unconscious decision, can you? The difference between me and you is that you see and criticise things from the narrow human standpoint, while i view things through evolution from the whole animal scale. So decision making in humans being evoluted from rudimentary "decision making" in cells and lower animals is basicaly the same funnction in all cases.So we can have unconscious decisions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3647 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
It is your vague approach to the word intelligence that is causing others to take your meaning in various ways.
There is not any vagueness. Just a different approach.Iquote from the O.P: "Intelligence: I don’t give it the original meaning of the word (namely, to choose between contingent alternatives). What I really mean is: in response to environmental and other factors, a naturally inside organism pre-existing mechanism, and by force of chemistry and physics, causes changes in the genome. So I think of it as a mechanism, but not intelligence in any traditional sense. Of course we have then the eternal question to face here: how was this made?" But this is a second level question." Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
zi ko writes:
But as I pointed out earlier, your definition makes no sense...
There is not any vagueness. Just a different approach.Message 248 zi ko writes: rocs and clouds are subjected to physical laws. This makes them arudimentary intelligent, not in the way you percieve it.Panda writes: But rocks and clouds are intelligent in the way that you perceive it, yes?Using your definition of 'intelligence', everything (including rocks and clouds) is 'intelligent', yes? zi ko writes:
So - using your definition of 'intelligence' -
Yes.zi ko writes: - the 'intelligence' of rocks and clouds causes changes in their genomes. Intelligence: I don’t give it the original meaning of the word (namely, to choose between contingent alternatives). What I really mean is: in response to environmental and other factors, a naturally inside organism pre-existing mechanism, and by force of chemistry and physics, causes changes in the genome. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Zi Ko,
You're going in circles with your definitions of intelligence. First you offered a definition in your opening post, which was rather vague. Then during discussion you became more specific and said that everything in the universe has intelligence. Then later you endorsed Swain's definition as quoted in Message 194. And now you're back to your original vague definition again. This thread does not have much longer to run, this is no time to reset to square zero. If you have any useful and unambiguous definition of intelligence to offer, tell us now. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
In smmation: I was right about how this thread would turn out.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
As I pointed out in Message 9, a hydrogen atom does not decide whether or not it wants to attach to an oxygen atom. So far there has been zero evidence presented in support of Nature's innate intelligence.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Unless there's a bug, you should have received an alert that read something like this:
This thread will enter summation mode after 300 messages (18 more messages). After that time participants may post a single summation message to this thread. So it's too early for summations. When the thread enters summation mode you'll get this alert:
This thread is in summation mode. Participants may post a single summation using the General Reply button. Replies to specific messages are not allowed. AbE: If you click on the "Thread Details" link at the top you'll see summation mode information in the box on the right hand side. Edited by Admin, : AbE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3647 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
I quote from wikipedia:
"Belyaev believed that the key factor selected for in the domestication of dogs was not size or reproduction, but behavior; specifically, amenability to domestication, or tameability. He selected for low flight distance, that is, the distance one can approach the animal before it runs away. Selecting this behavior mimics the natural selection that must have occurred in the ancestral past of dogs. More than any other quality, Belyaev believed, tameability must have determined how well an animal would adapt to life among humans. Because behavior is rooted in biology, selecting for tameness and against aggression means selecting for physiological changes in the systems that govern the body's hormones and neurochemicals" Selecting for flight distance and behavior means that he was selecting for mainly learnt staff. The short time of the experiment imply that there was not any mutations involved. Anyway Belayev have not said anything about it. It is important to note that he talks about hormones and neurochemicals, both of which are related to messaging, particularly the neurochemicals directly lelated to neural system and learning.(rememper my neuro-genic theory of evolution)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ziko writes: Selecting for flight distance and behavior means that he was selecting for mainly learnt staff. Your ability to misinterpret plain English and read into a passage what you want to see is amazing and incredible. It isn't like the passage you quoted is ambiguous. I can't explain it any better than Wikipedia and won't try. Any progress on that definition of intelligence? You're running out of time. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024