|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nature's innate intelligence. Does it exist? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Panda writes: The behaviour of chemicals inside the plant's cells are dependent on the laws of physics. They cannot behave in any other way. A plant has a particular combination of chemicals+cells which when subjected to sunlight will rotate the plant to face the light. If they have that particular combination of cells then they have no choice but to turn to the light - in the same way that ice has no choice but to melt when heated. I think ziko is playing a game of definitional dimwittedness of epic proprtions. But having said that.....I am going to ask a devils advocate question that you can choose to pursue or ignore as you see fit. Are brain cells any different to what you have described above? Don't they obey the laws of physics? Can they behave in any other way? If NOT being restricted by these things is the criteria for "intelligence" then can we really say that our brains, and thus we, are "intelligent"....?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ziko writes: Thinking is clearly a human characteristic, but grades of it is met to animals, even lower ones, as well. OK. But to "think" requires a brain of some sort does it not? In what sense do cells "think".....?Is my computer "thinking" as it responds to my keyboard inputs? Are pebbles "thinking" as they respond to gravity or any other forces applied to them? If you are going to say that cells "think" then you need to provide some sort of dividing line between that which "thinks" and that which doesn't and explain your reasons for drawing that boundary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Panda writes: "NOT being restricted by these things" is not the criteria for intelligence. Fair enough. So what is? If human brains result in "intelligence" but individual cells don't what is it that we mean by "intelligence" in this context? I am not agreeing with (loony) Ziko. Just trying to prompt those who oppose him to think about what it is they actually mean.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Panda writes: Yes - sometimes I get complacent and need a kick. Well consider yourself kicked!! At which point I will leave you and others to confront ziko's particular brand of silliness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
OK. How?
Isn't it just a mass of cells responding to stimuli and acting oit the laws of physics? In what way (to pursue my devils advocate stance) is it not just a more complex variant of plants involuntarily turning towards the Sun?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Straggler on the human brain writes: Isn't it just a mass of cells responding to stimuli and acting out the laws of physics? In what way (to pursue my devils advocate stance) is it not just a more complex variant of plants involuntarily turning towards the Sun? jar writes: Because it is capable of NOT turning to face the sun. I'll grant you that the range of inputs a brain can respond to is greater than those that the motion of a plant can respond to. But is the human brain any more capable of doing something other than deterministically responding to inputs and obeying the laws of physics than the plant is? Given a specific set of inputs is the human brain any more capable of doing otherwise than the plant is when confronted with it's very basic input? Is intelligence just the unpredictability borne of increased complexity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: I'm sorry but I don't see any point or relevancy in that post. Well a number of people seem to be saying that the plant isn't displaying intelligence because it is simply responding to stimuli as a result of chemistry and physics. So I am asking - Is the human brain any more capable of doing something other than deterministically responding to inputs and obeying the laws of chemistry and physics than the plant is?
jar writes: Intelligence is increased complexity and the ability to make irrational, illogical and unreasonable decisions. Are insects "intelligent"...? Worms? Rhombozoans? Jellyfish? Cats? It seems obvious that humans are intelligent and cells aren't (well..maybe not to Zi ko) so I am asking what criteria are we applying to qualify something as "intelligent" or not. Where is the boundary? And if it is blurred (as I would argue it is) what is the nature of the blurring?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: Since that has already been answered several times, I still am at a loss about what you are asking. The blurring is when the critter can decide NOT to respond and the ability to make irrational, illogical and unreasonable decisions. You even quoted that. Yes - But I am trying to find out what you mean. Do you think that given a specific set of inputs a human is free to take more than one course of action in a way that the plant is not? That humans are essentially non-deterministic in a way that plants are not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
OK. Then we seem to have established that your view of "intelligence" seems to require some form of dualism.
I am not sure that this is much more evidentially justifiable than Ziko's notion that cells have intelligence. But there you go.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
How are you getting non-determinism from complexity?
The laws of chemistry and physics are deterministic are they not? If the human brain is a physical system following the laws of chemistry and physics then a specific set of circumstances will lead to a predetermined outcome.
jar writes: It is simply the ability to NOT turn to face the sun. Deterministically speaking whether you turn to face the Sun or not depends on a chain of events prior to you even existing. So unless you are invoking something other than the laws of chemistry and physics it is highly debatable as to whether you do have this ability in the way that you seem to mean. The complexity just makes it less predictable than the plant. Not any less determined.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Taq writes: I would say that it is different. I would certainly agree that it is different. Ziko's assertion that cells are "intelligent" is just an exercise is silly semantics with which I suspect he has confused even himself. But having said that - The idea that something lacks intelligence just because it is responding to stimuli and acting in accordance with the laws of physics is also a non-starter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: Sorry but I simply do not believe you. What don't you believe?
jar writes: Of course it involves more than just the laws of chemistry and physics. What else do you think is involved?
jar writes: Yes, it is a matter of complexity which is lacking in a cell. What does complexity have to do with human behaviour being any less a product of physics and chemistry than that of plants?
jar writes: Yes, it is a matter of complexity which is lacking in a cell. OK. But not all complex things are intelligent are they? So what aside from complexity qualifies something as "intelligent" rather than not?
jar writes: Once again, asked and answered. Rather than simply repeating this that why don't you try and be a bit more forthcoming?
jar writes: It really is that simple. Actually the question of what is intelligent and what isn't is not a simple question at all. So perhaps this is where you are going wrong here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Ziko writes: Rocks, tides, etc are obeying to physical , chemical , electromagneting etc forces. These forces express their intelligence. Can we get an IQ score for gravity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Ziko writes: Is it supposed to be a" clever" question? Define clever...... It was a somewhat facetious question because you ignored my previous questions. Here they are again. Originally posted Message 60 To "think" requires a brain of some sort does it not? In what sense do cells "think".....?Is my computer "thinking" as it responds to my keyboard inputs? Are pebbles "thinking" as they respond to gravity or any other forces applied to them? If you are going to say that cells "think" then you need to provide some sort of dividing line between that which "thinks" and that which doesn't and explain your reasons for drawing that boundary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024