Intelligence (Origins)

by dhw, Wednesday, February 27, 2013, 14:46 (4285 days ago)

During our various discussions on evolution, origins, first causes, energy etc., we have constantly used the word "intelligence": David believes in a Universal Intelligence, some people believe in Intelligent Design, and I have been pushing the concept of the "intelligent cell/genome". Panpsychism is the theory that spatio-temporal things have a mental aspect, and in my own slant on this, again I have used the word intelligence. It may not be the right term in any of these contexts, but we don't have an English word that conveys all the nuances we need.-Generally, we use "intelligence" to mean the ability to perceive, learn, understand, reason, think about things, make decisions etc. And we associate it with consciousness, which in turn we associate with self-awareness. This is the element I would like to eliminate from the concept I'm trying to develop. In the context of evolution, adaptation (microevolution) and innovation (macroevolution) require a mechanism that will perceive, understand and adjust to the demands and opportunities presented by the environment, and the adaptive element of the process also applies to the cells within our own bodies, which must adjust to temperature, illness, diet, exercise and every other changeable factor in our daily lives. I do not believe that the cellular mechanisms are self-aware, which is why I prefer "intelligent" to "conscious".-Our fellow animals display varying degrees of intelligence, but I think most of us would agree that their self-awareness levels are considerably below our own, and so my concept - like the history of evolution itself - ranges from non-consciousness (e.g. bacteria, living cells) through consciousness (other animals) to extreme consciousness (humans).-Let us now move to the question of how inorganic matter came to life. It seems to be accepted that energy can form matter, which can again revert to being energy, and so perhaps this will give us a possible answer, following the analogy of the intelligent but non-conscious cell. If energy as the "first cause" has "intelligence" of the non-conscious variety, some of the matter it forms may be imbued with this same "intelligence", i.e. the ability to perceive, understand, adjust, and even invent. As an added bonus, we can even suppose that once the matter disintegrates, as all matter does, the energy might be released back into the infinite pool, having by then absorbed a great deal more information than it started with. In the case of humans, we know that it has acquired individual identity and self-awareness, so that when the matter (= the physical body) disintegrates, the released energy may be at human level, and not ... say ... bacterial. (I think this may fit in with some of BBella's ideas, but please note that all my speculations entail a "might" or a "may" or a "perhaps"!)-There is nothing original in this concept, and although it is irreconcilable with materialism, it certainly isn't with atheism. There are many eastern religions/philosophies (e.g. various branches of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism) that do not subscribe to a creator god but do believe in a spiritual life and also have their own words for this "intelligence". (BBella's "Akashi" is the Hindu word "Akasi", meaning ether, or the life-giving force.) But as I have pointed out before, every term carries its own burden of associations, and that is what I'm trying to avoid. David often claims that his UI has no attributes, but he endows it with self-awareness, purposefulness, the ability to plan, whereas the form of intelligence I am proposing really is devoid of any such qualities.-What, then, is the point of this hypothesis? It's an alternative that covers objections raised by both theists and atheists to the others' beliefs. The theist objects that atheism relies on chance for mechanisms so complex that they still defy all our attempts to explain them. The response to this would be that evolution already shows how lesser forms of intelligence can, over time, increase in complexity and levels of awareness, and so a "first cause" energy with low-level intelligence could also, in the same way, produce the intelligently combining materials that gave rise to life initially. The atheist objects to any concept that involves a divine being which consciously created the universe and life. The response to this would be that there is no such being, but that the universe (as energy converting itself into matter) is filled with materials which ... just like living cells ... are able to link up "intelligently" in an endless series of experiments. In other words, just as cells combined "intelligently" to create brand new organs like the liver, the heart, the brain, chemicals combined "intelligently" to form the first living molecules. The liver was not the result of chance mutations but of inventive cooperation between "intelligent" cells. Similarly, life and the mechanisms for evolution were not the result of chance combinations, but of inventive cooperation between "intelligent" chemicals. Research has already shown that cells communicate. Perhaps chemicals also communicate. -A "perhaps" that's worth considering?