Summations Only

Then why are you even using the word "intelligence"? What are you gaining by picking that word?Why not something like "plasticity"? That would be less confusing and actually make more sense.Nature's innate plasticity. Does it exist?What do you think?

Ah, yes; I ended that thread with this:

quote:

---

Oh, I stopped being fair after I realized how pompous and conceited he was... sometime between my Message 101 and Message 235...
They're just not worth being fair to. My time is much better spent laughing at them.

---

Yeah, you're right. But I still wonder what they think they're gaining by, or why they are, using the word "intelligence".

The definition you give has nothing to do with the common definition. Its totally different than what people think of when they see the word "intelligence". What are you gaining by using it? Why are you using it? Why not use a different word?

If you look at the wiki page on "intelligence", you'll see it described as:

quote:

---

Intelligence has been defined in different ways, including the abilities for abstract thought, understanding, communication, reasoning, learning, planning, emotional intelligence and problem solving.

---

None of those things require non-determinism, per se. But, they are things that humans do and plants do not. So there's more to the reasons that plants can not be considered intelligent while humans can than the simple 'they can't choose not to do X'... which does seem to preclude determinism.

For more honest questions you can see Message 28.

I agree with you, I was kinda just springboarding off what you had said.

Because what you have been sayin all the time is pure nonsense. You've redefined "intelligence" into meaninglessness. Your writing is vague and confused, but obviously incorrect. Intelligence requires a brain. Its not something that everything has.You nevered answered my questions though:Why are you using the word "intelligence"? What are you gaining by using it? Why don't you use a different word?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : spelling

Well this is a significantly different position than the one in the OP, but wrong nonetheless.Physical laws leading to certain actions cannot, themselves, be subject to those actions that depend on the laws. For the laws are required and the actions cannot be precluded from them.That is, physical laws leading to intelligence cannot be from intelligence, themselves, because the intelligence requires the physical laws in the first place.

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.