Clever Corvids: more on how clever (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, November 26, 2018, 11:50 (1977 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The issue is still the same: a mind knows why the action is intelligent. That is true intelligence. Our outside judgement recognizes intelligent results which actually is our analysis of the action. The underlying process can be automatic or intelligent. No way around this.

dhw: That is not the issue at all. What is “true” intelligence, as opposed to intelligence? You have gone back to the great big wiggle of defining intelligence as self-awareness. There are degrees of intelligence, as you have admitted in the past when talking about your dog and corvids and other problem-solving creatures (problem-solving being the prime means by which scientists test for intelligence). But now apparently you think that only humans are intelligent. (now bolded by dhw)

DAVID: You have misinterpreted my comment. We are back to the debate whether an action is understood as knowledgeably intended or automatic and the result of instinct. Those of us with consciousness know why we respond as we do.

And that is what you called “true” intelligence. I challenge that concept and argue that there are degrees of intelligence. (Bold above)

DAVID: I've lived with dogs most of my life. [You then recount various experiences, but crucially you continue:) I agree he showed intelligent purpose. But he only has a minor degree of that, compared to me.

Precisely as I said: there are degrees of intelligence, as opposed to your "true intelligence". (Bold above)

DAVID: So back to cells: they have no degree of cognitive understanding and therefore reacting with what looks intelligent but all they are doing is following an intelligent designed response to a stimulus.

And so you go back to your “large organs chauvinism” (Shapiro) by repeating your belief - as if it were a fact - that cells merely follow your God’s instructions. “My” scientists specifically argue that cells do have a degree of cognitive understanding.