Summations Only

Then find another word. That is not intelligence. Human intelligence is not defined as changing our genome in response to the environment. No one defines intelligence in such a fashion. Again, find a new word. You use such a broad definition of intelligence that it is reduced to nothing. According to your broad definition two hydrogen atoms combining with an oxygen atom would qualify as intelligence. In trying to make bacteria look intelligent you have made the word meaningless.

Humans reaction to light is not due to changes in their genome.

Using the zi ko proof, if man is intelligent why not rocks?

That is exactly what YOU are guilty of. You are trying to compare human intelligence to deterministic pathways in single cells. They are not analogs. They are very different. There is no decision making in a single cell. That is what separates human intelligence and the actions of a single cell.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

The fungus does not bid the ant to do anything. There is no decision making process in the fungus. The chemicals released by the fungus cause the ant to act in a specific manner. Neither the fungus nor the ant has any choice in the matter. That is what they do, just like a rain drop has no say in falling from a cloud.

When those organisms have a decision making process that allows them to predict future consequences of their actions and actions currently unfolding in the environment. Single celled organisms are only reactive. They have set responses to set stimuli. There is no decision making process.

When it is my decision to do it, or not do it. For example, this is the TLR4 pathway that is initiated when the CD14/LPS complex binds to TLR4. I have personally looked that NFKB translocation as a downstream response to LPS in various TLR4 expressing cells. There is no decision making process in this response. None. It is a triggered response, not a decision. This is not so for the actions I take as part of my intelligent response.

If you give someone a large dose of TNF- is it their intelligence that causes them to feel like shit? Yes, rudimentary brains produce rudimentary intelligence. This is a far cry from showing that single cells are intelligent in the same way, and even farther away from showing that mutations are guided by intelligent choices in single celled bacteria.

I would say that it is different. Intelligent species use abstractions to represent the world around them, and from those abstractions they predict the consequences of their actions. In this way an intelligent species is able to mold their actions so that the outcome of events benefits them in some way. This is not so with unintelligent species. They will always take the same actions, even if it is to their detriment.

Can you describe something that is not intelligent?

That is about what we expected you to say. Your definition of "intelligence" is so broad that it can include ANYTHING. When a definition is this broad it becomes useless because you can not differentiate between what is and is not intelligent.Imagine if I made the claim that everything was blue. You show me an apple and I say that it is blue. You point to the sun and I also claim that this is blue. You ask me if the electromagnetic waves coming from a radio tower are blue, and I say that they are. As it turns out, I have redefined blue so that it is consistent with any wavelength of EM energy. Would you consider my redefinition of blue to be a fair one?

How do you determine if a reaction is intelligent or not?

Why do you need to redefine intelligence to begin with? If you have to redefine intelligence then it tells me that what you are describing as intelligent is nothing of the kind.

Yes it is. This is what you said in the opening post:"Intelligence: I don’t give it the original meaning of the word (namely, to choose between contingent alternatives). "You are redefining intelligence. This tells me that what you describe as intelligence is nothing of the kind.

After parsing your claims, no it doesn't need attention. Anything and everything can be considered intelligent as you define it. Therefore, it is meaningless.What is quite apparent is that you already have a conclusion, but nothing to back it up. This causes you to be very inconsistent, using ad hoc rationalization to cover the holes in your argument. Such an argument does not deserve attention.