Summations Only

"Innate intelligence" is a chiropractic term, isn't it? A made up kind of magic that only chiropractors can manipulate.It's one of those terms like "your body's natural balance" or "strengthens the immune system" which doesn't really mean anything and can be used by quacks and conmen to sell things without getting in trouble with the FDA

Okay, but let's be clear.In Chiro - "Innate Intelligence" = "an undetectable mechanism inside the body which can not be verified experimentally, to which we attribute a non-specific host of functions."In this scenario "Innate Intelligence" seems to be "an undetectable mechanism inside the body which can not be verified experimentally, to which we attribute a non-specific host of functions."In chrio the functions include "energy blockage" and "wellness"
In this scenario the functions include "directed change in the genome"But really, the claim doesn't seem to be any different."Innate Intelligence" is a label for a mechanism which doesn't exist.

[qs]They acquire information about external and internal conditions, transmit and process that information inside the cell, compute the appropriate biochemical or biomechanical response, and activate the molecules needed to execute that response. [qs] Zi, it seems like this claim is desperately in need of Occam's Razor.I read this as:1) Cells exist
2) Cells are exposed to "information"
3) Cells transfer that "information" to other cells
4) Cells think about that "information" and decide something
5) Cells produce a chemical/mechanical response
6) Cells tell other cells what do toWhy not this:
1) Cells exist
2) Cells are exposed to a chemical or mechanical phenomena
3) A reaction occurs resulting in a chemical or mechanical responseNo need to attribute the cells with "thinking" at all.If I apply heat to a piece of paper, it burns. I don't need to pretend that the paper is thinking about the heat and deciding on a response and telling the rest of the paper how to burn.

That still would not require intelligence.For example, if an organism were exposed to some chemical mutagen, the offspring it produced would likely have more mutations than the average offspring of a non-exposed individual.That doesn't require any thinking on anyone's part. That's the chemical result of the exposure.

It's not oversimplification.It's just reality.You are suggesting mechanisms and abilities within cells when there is no evidence that such is present and no need for them to be present to accurately describe what is happening. Yes, but we aren't talking about pigs or dolphins.We are talking about individual cells.There's no evidence that my (however many) skin cells are each involved in independent thought.

I would suspect that, unless programmed otherwise, AI would rely on utilitarianism as a moral code. Which outcome is greater? Okay, that's what we do.It may not be a form of morality that humans will like very much, but it is morality.

Utilitarianism is a moral code, it just has a different means of measuring what is "moral" or "ethical" which is antithetical to most other forms of morality.In utilitarianism, if killing 100,000 people will allow 100,001 other people to survive, then load up the laser cannons.