AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

In the spirit of BBella's "Ultimate Truth" thread:-I've heard her and a few other people such as dhw explain something about an intelligence "wholly different" than ours. -Lets talk about an intelligence wholly different than ours. What could it be like?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6371 views

In answer to the thread title: 'What Exactly IS Intelligence?' - To my mind, intelligence is goal oriented problem solving energy. This sentient energy moves/works as dual aspects within One fabric of the all that IS. An old Sufi saying expresses well the "movement" of this sentient energy within all that IS. "God sleeps in the rock, dreams in the plants, stirs in the animal, and awakens in man." All parts of the ONE fabric work autonomously. It's all a catch 22: Light and dark - particles and waves - man and woman- male and female - etc. One aspect cannot be (is not) without the other. The expressed duality of what IS. Intelligence is the dance. All independently dancing together toward one goal - to be. -> In the spirit of BBella's "Ultimate Truth" thread:
> 
> I've heard her and a few other people such as dhw explain something about an intelligence "wholly different" than ours. 
> 
> Lets talk about an intelligence wholly different than ours. What could it be like?-In answer to the question above: To my mind, ALL intelligence IS goal oriented problem solving energy. If there are other intelligent 'beings' on other planets, they could be an older, wiser, more advanced civilization - or younger and less advanced, although age does not always beget wisdom and intelligence does not always mean smart. But practice does make perfect and experience is the best teacher. And sometimes, like with our own civilization, we just have to keeping starting over from scratch in hopes of getting it right. But what is right? -Sorry for rambling...wondering now if I even 'understood' your question?-bb

6276 views

I'm prepared to go along with the definition that "intelligence is problem solving ability". But why "goal-oriented"? The aim is to find a solution, which is a sufficient goal. No other goal need be specified.-However I object to the misuse of the word "energy". For me energy is a physical quantity having the dimensions of mass times velocity squared. It is something measurable. BBella seems to be using it in the sense of "entity". The rest of her first paragraph is just mystical poetry that makes little sense to me. Her second paragraph makes more sense.-A higher intelligence would clearly be able to understand more difficult problems and to solve them more quickly. A lot of that depends on knowledge. I'm sure modern people can solve many questions a lot more quickly that ancient peoples. You only have to think of multiplying numbers in roman numerals! -I certainly don't think disembodied intelligence is possible. An unstructured bundle of energy cannot exhibit intelligence any more than a bucket of mud can! 
It requires a complexly structured brain.

--
GPJ

6341 views

MATT: In the spirit of BBella's "Ultimate Truth" thread: I've heard a few other people such as dhw explain something about an intelligence "wholly different" than ours. [...] What could it be like?-A mischievously ambiguous question! Does it refer to the way of thinking, or to the immaterial form? I must say, I don't recall ever using such a term (let alone explaining it), but we've had thought-provoking answers already from BBella and George, and it's a useful way of confronting one's own concepts.-As far as I'm concerned, the way of thinking goes back to design. If there is no designer, and life is the result of an accident, our intelligence may well be out on its own. Perhaps there have been other accidents, and other intelligent beings are out there, but I don't think that's what Matt is aiming at. The object of this game, as I interpret it, is to determine the nature of God's intelligence, if he exists. And the reason why I'm surprised at being drawn into the "wholly different" terminology is that this is not what I think at all. The only clue we have as to the nature of God's intelligence lies in what he has created, and the only form of intelligence we actually know is ours. The starting point then has to be the creation, not the creator, and I simply cannot see how he would have produced a form of intelligence "wholly different" from his own. Just as our descent from other animals suggests to me that they must have similar feelings to ours, our "descent" from a hypothetical God suggests that he too must be similar. And so I would argue that we are not anthropomorphizing animals or God when we maintain that there is a direct link. If God created us with our consciousness, emotion, artistic flair, reason, then I take it as a sign that he himself has these same attributes.-That is not to say that our intelligence is on anything like a par with God's, since a being that can design and build a universe and a mechanism giving rise to life and evolution makes us puny in the extreme. -What about form? George believes that intelligence "requires a complexly structured brain", which of course is the materialistic interpretation, and he objects to BBella's use of the word "energy" (which again he sees solely as a "physical quantity"). Perhaps he's right. But David's personal and moving post under "An ideal ultimate truth?" (thank you for that) also refers to "energy" in the context of an afterlife. The problem is that a non-materialistic intelligence is so far beyond our range of knowledge and imagination that language can't really cope. George also objects to BBella's "mystical poetry", but maybe that is the only way to gain verbal access. God, energy, spirit, soul ... it makes no difference. This is the immaterial equivalent of dark matter and dark energy, with the words simply indicating something we don't know.

6277 views

What is intelligence?-Well I would argue it is whatever we define it to be.
But I suspect this is not a helpful answer.-Having participated in this debate on another forum I have come to the conclusion intelligence is deeply entwined with the concepts of consciousness, life, free will and no doubt other similar phenomena. OK not terribly helpful so far.-OK how about this as a definition of intelligence
"The ability of an entity to synthesize at least one response that is correlated with at least one stimulus."
It's not my definition but it certainly broadens the scope of what is and is not intelligent. -We end up asking how intelligent is a brick - not whether it is?

6299 views

BBella defined intelligence as "goal oriented problem solving energy", while George preferred "problem solving ability". Romansh suggests "the ability of an entity to synthesize at least one response that is correlated with at least one stimulus."-It was Matt who opened this thread, with reference to a Universal Intelligence which might be "wholly different" from ours, whereas in my post of 15 May at 09.29 I argued that I would imagine such an intelligence to be much the same as ours, only immeasurably more advanced.-Romansh has already debated this topic on another forum, so first of all thank you for reviving it on ours, as I don't think we really delved very deep. You gave me a good laugh with your response to your own definition: "We end up asking how intelligent is a brick ... not whether it is". I could just imagine the intelligent brick synthesizing its disintegration under the sledgehammer. The problem-solving definition ignores the fact that you need to be intelligent even to realize that there IS a problem. (I shan't go into the implications of my own inability to solve most of the problems I'm confronted with.)-You have come to the conclusion that "intelligence is deeply entwined with the concepts of consciousness, life, free will" etc., and I find that more helpful than the definitions offered so far. How about "a conscious ability to perceive, learn, understand and think about things, and to apply the knowledge thereby acquired"? -This brings me neatly to the second question you have raised under Sort of an Introduction: "Knowledge is one of those strange words for me ... I think I know what it means but I'm not so sure any more. The spectrum of to know, to think, to believe, to have faith. Is there a scale of grey here?" Exactly my own feelings, but in the light of Matt's response, I think we need to differentiate. Matt recognizes that "the only methods we have to VERIFY claims are necessarily materialistic." (Perhaps we should say verify "objectively" or at least "intersubjectively", since lots of people consider their own experience/opinion/instinct to be sufficient verification.) I agree ... but have never thought of it as "weak" agnosticism, Matt! ... and would say that for instance technology allows us a black and white on our spectrum. If it works, we can say we have knowledge. But the tones get greyer and greyer when we don't have such material tests. The constant flow of new discoveries that make us adjust our vision of the universe, or of the history of life and the evolution of man, blurs the borders even between scientific knowledge and belief, and many of today's "facts" are likely to become tomorrow's fiction. I suspect that in certain contexts, Darrow was right and we'll never touch the coat tails of truth, or to take Matt's analogy, we'll never truly know the dance. In this great scheme of things, I'd be inclined to say, with sceptical tongue in cheek, that knowledge is the belief that something is certain. One of my own favourite quotes is Karl Popper's "Our knowledge can only be finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite."

6236 views

BBella defined intelligence as "goal oriented problem solving energy", while George preferred "problem solving ability". Romansh suggests "the ability of an entity to synthesize at least one response that is correlated with at least one stimulus."
So the gadgetry in a car that seeks the goal of optimum fuel consumption is intelligent? Actually this meets the definition I quoted.
> Romansh has already debated this topic on another forum, so first of all thank you for reviving it on ours, as I don't think we really delved very deep. You gave me a good laugh with your response to your own definition: "We end up asking how intelligent is a brick ... not whether it is". I could just imagine the intelligent brick synthesizing its disintegration under the sledgehammer. The problem-solving definition ignores the fact that you need to be intelligent even to realize that there IS a problem. (I shan't go into the implications of my own inability to solve most of the problems I'm confronted with.)
Although the brick thing was meant to be amusing it was only partly in jest. Your response is anthropic in nature - which is fair enough. But just using the development of a human being as an example, at which point does a human being become intelligent or is it a grey scale extending back in time?-> You have come to the conclusion that "intelligence is deeply entwined with the concepts of consciousness, life, free will" etc., and I find that more helpful than the definitions offered so far. How about "a conscious ability to perceive, learn, understand and think about things, and to apply the knowledge thereby acquired"? 
To be a little more accurate I should have said ... "our concept of intelligence is deeply entwined ... " As it happens I'm deeply skeptical of free will, life and consciousness or at least the way these things are traditionally treated.-Regarding your definition - hey it's OK, I'm not going to argue, it's probably as good as any other. But it is again a very anthropic definition. Don't you think?

6194 views

I have made an attempt to define intelligence as "a conscious ability to perceive, learn, understand and think about things, and to apply the knowledge thereby acquired." Romansh thinks this is a very anthropic definition, and also asks "at which point does a human being become intelligent or is it a grey scale extending back in time?"-The starting point of this thread was Matt's question concerning a Universal Intelligence "wholly different" from ours ... in contrast to my own view that if there is such a thing as a UI, its intelligence will be much the same as ours but immeasurably more advanced. My own definition therefore has to take in the UI, and it also has to take in the implications of your question. Intelligence as I've defined it is absolutely not confined to humans. I believe ... as I'm sure you do ... that we are animals descended from earlier forms of animal, and just as the hypothetical UI's intelligence would be more advanced than ours, I would argue that our human intelligence is more advanced than that of other animals. But its fundamental nature is the same: a conscious ability etc. Now of course we can't know for sure (see our discussion on knowledge) that the brick doesn't perceive and feel and think in its own way, but for us to have a meaningful discussion, we have to draw a line somewhere, and since a brick is a man-made object without any of the accoutrements that we associate with thought, perhaps we can agree that on a scale of 0-10 in the intelligence rankings, it achieves 0. -The gadgetry in a car does indeed meet your definition, but it doesn't meet mine, and it doesn't meet your own conclusion that our concept of intelligence is "deeply entwined" with consciousness. Of course our concept is anthropic, in that the word "intelligence" is a human invention designed ... like all our language ... to denote a portion of the world we live in and (think we) know. But as humans all you and I are doing now is simply trying to explain what we're referring to when we use the term. I use it to denote those qualities I've listed (but am open to other suggestions).-What I see as a far more difficult problem is to gauge what elements of intelligence ... as I've defined it ... are present in other forms. We probably agree about the brick, but what about plant life, funguses (see David's Ain't nature wonderful), insects?*** Up and up we go along the chain, which takes us to a slightly different question from yours: I wouldn't ask at which point a human being becomes intelligent, but at what point do we say that ANYTHING becomes intelligent? The implications of this are vast. Plants, funguses etc. have the most ingenious ways of solving problems (going back to George's definition), but if we are convinced that they have no consciousness, no ability to think about things etc., what is the source of their instinctive problem-solving ability? You may say (loosely?) that your car gadgetry is intelligent, but I would say the intelligence actually comes from the person who designed the mechanism. David Turell would, I think, argue that the "intelligence" of the fungus goes back to the designer of the mechanisms that eventually gave rise to the fungus and its behaviour. But that of course raises a host of other questions...-*** I see you've raised a similar point in your response to Matt. You compare a brick and an amoeba, and ask which is more intelligent. Following the definition I've offered, I don't see any way round our subjective perceptions here: what degree of consciousness do you personally attribute to a brick or to an amoeba? If we follow your definition,I'm afraid I'll have to agree with Matt that it allows for some silly formulations (e.g. that a brick has a degree of intelligence). As regards the amoeba, does your definition allow for any distinction between intelligence and instinct?

6232 views

dhw,
> The starting point of this thread was Matt's question concerning a Universal Intelligence "wholly different" from ours ... in contrast to my own view that if there is such a thing as a UI, its intelligence will be much the same as ours but immeasurably more advanced. -AH! AH!! STOP RIGHT THERE!!!-This is exactly what I wanted from this thread in the first place!-dhw, ignore my excitement for a moment, and ponder the question:-"What would make an intelligence immeasurably more advanced?"

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6211 views

If there is such a thing as a UI, I would expect its intelligence to be much the same as ours, but immeasurably more advanced. Matt, now wildly excited, asks: "What would make an intelligence immeasurably more advanced?"-I can only answer in terms of realities I think I know about. A UI must have the ability to fashion what we call the laws of Nature, in order to allow matter firstly to form conditions suitable for life, and then to assemble the chemical and biological elements necessary to create the mechanisms for life, reproduction, adaptation and innovation, leading eventually to the amazingly complex thinking, feeling, imagining, creating machine which is us. In order to accomplish these scientific feats, a UI will have a conscious ability to perceive, learn, understand and think about things, and to apply the knowledge thereby acquired. We humans have come a long way, but we are not able to get anywhere near this scale of scientific know-how ... hence "immeasurably more advanced". -Perhaps I should anticipate various follow-ups to this by saying (a) I haven't a clue whether such a UI exists; (b) I haven't a clue how it might have come into existence if it does exist; (c) I haven't a clue whether matter itself has always been there or was also part of the creation; (d) if it has always been there, I haven't a clue what it was like before the hypothetical UI fiddled around with it. However, I am convinced that I exist, and as science gradually unravels the mechanisms that make me what I am, I don't think it is unreasonable to suppose that science might have put those mechanisms together in the first place. The very fact that I am consciously able to perceive, learn, understand, think etc. and actually create new things through these faculties therefore does give me a possible clue to the nature of the intelligence that may have created the mechanisms.

6218 views


> The very fact that I am consciously able to perceive, learn, understand, think etc. and actually create new things through these faculties therefore does give me a possible clue to the nature of the intelligence that may have created the mechanisms.-Here is a Christian viewpoint on the brain and consciousness:-http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/08/mysteries-of-consciousness

6300 views


> > The very fact that I am consciously able to perceive, learn, understand, think etc. and actually create new things through these faculties therefore does give me a possible clue to the nature of the intelligence that may have created the mechanisms.
> 
> Here is a Christian viewpoint on the brain and consciousness:
> 
> http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/08/mysteries-of-consciousness-Not exactly Christian; the guy might be Christian but there's nothing religious about the discussion. It's thoughtful and candid--and most importantly--cautious! In fact, I didn't even see a single mention of Christ or God. -It is a good statement of the problem of consciousness.-I can't help but mention that it's a little OT for this thread, even if it is a very valuable addition to our overall discussion.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6189 views

What is intelligence?
> 
> Well I would argue it is whatever we define it to be.-Well, theoretically nearly all things we call knowledge fall right under this category. Most knowledge is relative, inferred from something else. Intelligence is similarly elusive.-> But I suspect this is not a helpful answer.
> 
> Having participated in this debate on another forum I have come to the conclusion intelligence is deeply entwined with the concepts of consciousness, life, free will and no doubt other similar phenomena. OK not terribly helpful so far.
> 
> OK how about this as a definition of intelligence
> "The ability of an entity to synthesize at least one response that is correlated with at least one stimulus."
> It's not my definition but it certainly broadens the scope of what is and is not intelligent. 
> -This is a useful definition from a scientific perspective--at first glance; probably one of the best I've seen yet. But it does allow for some silly formulations. How would you rate one subject being more intelligent than another? Or better yet, how would you rate something like musical or artistic intelligence, when they arise from a stimulus that cannot be verified by a third party? Even the definition you provide misses a great deal of things that we have come to accept to be human intelligence.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6206 views

This is a useful definition from a scientific perspective--at first glance; probably one of the best I've seen yet. But it does allow for some silly formulations. How would you rate one subject being more intelligent than another? Or better yet, how would you rate something like musical or artistic intelligence, when they arise from a stimulus that cannot be verified by a third party? Even the definition you provide misses a great deal of things that we have come to accept to be human intelligence.-It's from a computing professor at George Washington University, I'll have to read his book. So it is a scientific definition, you are right; is this inappropriate for this kind of discussion?-I don't actually think the formulations are silly - despite the prospect of ever so slightly intelligent bricks. But it does give us a different perspective on our place in the universe (if we have one at all?)-So which is more intelligent an amoeba or a brick? Instinctively I would say an amoeba. But in saying so I'm anthropomorphizing an intent for that amoeba. Do you agree? Both objects react and interact with their environment. Bricks bind with calcium oxide and silica in the cement and amoeba adsorb and metabolize organic nutrients in their environment.

6205 views


> So which is more intelligent an amoeba or a brick? Instinctively I would say an amoeba. But in saying so I'm anthropomorphizing an intent for that amoeba. Do you agree? Both objects react and interact with their environment. Bricks bind with calcium oxide and silica in the cement and amoeba adsorb and metabolize organic nutrients in their environment.-An amoeba has automatisms, instinctual behavior somehow coded in its genome. They do communicate with each other to a degree, chemically. It is difficult to compare inorganic and organic. Crystals multiply but they are not alive. I don't think we can push instincts to the point of calling an amoeba intelligent. My poodle, yes. He knows that I am going out if I put on my hat, and that means crate time for him. Intelligence, and a degree of consciousness. I think intelligence implies a degree of consciousness.

6222 views

An amoeba has automatisms, instinctual behavior somehow coded in its genome. They do communicate with each other to a degree, chemically. It is difficult to compare inorganic and organic. Crystals multiply but they are not alive. I don't think we can push instincts to the point of calling an amoeba intelligent. My poodle, yes. He knows that I am going out if I put on my hat, and that means crate time for him. Intelligence, and a degree of consciousness. I think intelligence implies a degree of consciousness.-Does not an amoeba seek goals follow chemical gradients? So are you saying neither a brick nor an amoeba have intelligence? Likely you would argue a pre-zygote is not intelligent either, but it has the ability to manipulate,to interact with the mother's body and the wherewithall to create the most complex machine that we know of. You might argue this is purely instinct and and not intelligence. So my question where in the chain from conception to death does a being become intelligent? -
> dhw I see you've raised a similar point in your response to Matt. You compare a brick and an amoeba, and ask which is more intelligent. Following the definition I've offered, I don't see any way round our subjective perceptions here: what degree of consciousness do you personally attribute to a brick or to an amoeba? If we follow your definition,I'm afraid I'll have to agree with Matt that it allows for some silly formulations (e.g. that a brick has a degree of intelligence). As regards the amoeba, does your definition allow for any distinction between intelligence and instinct?-By silly do you mean counter intuitive? Some might argue a broader definition of intelligence is not helpful. I would respectfully disagree. I suspect we are discussing the quality of intelligence or perhaps an intelligence that is made in man's image. -Like I meant to say before, the concept of intelligence is deeply embedded in our concepts of consciousness, life and free will. By some definitions we can't be intelligent unless we have consciousness. Is this an assumption or is it simply part of a definition?-I'd like to nail down a definition of intelligence before we even tackle a "universal intelligence".-I suppose I'm angling for a position where everything has an intelligence, but somethings have a much better quality of intelligence, at least by our lights.-Need a better term than "better quality", but I think you get my drift.

6199 views


> I'd like to nail down a definition of intelligence before we even tackle a "universal intelligence".
> 
> I suppose I'm angling for a position where everything has an intelligence, but somethings have a much better quality of intelligence, at least by our lights.
> 
> Need a better term than "better quality", but I think you get my drift.-I think I would define intelligence as the ability to have a short series of related or interrelated observations and/or concepts. That removes the instincts of the amoeba, but my poodle and the hat demonstrates a series of observations and conclusions. He shows a degree of intelligence, but not very much consciousness.

6205 views

ROMANSH: By some definitions we can't be intelligent unless we have consciousness. Is this an assumption or is it simply part of a definition?-I had deliberately built consciousness into my definition, and since you had yourself concluded that "intelligence is deeply entwined with the concepts of consciousness" etc., I had assumed you would agree. And I also assumed you would agree that bricks were not intelligent. Clearly I should not make such assumptions. For you, intelligence is comparative:
"I suppose I'm angling for a position where everything has an intelligence, but some things have a much better quality of intelligence, at least by our lights."-As we don't have any other lights to guide us, we can probably agree that you and I are more intelligent than bricks. The view of the world you're presenting is not very far removed from that of BBella and of Frank (a process theologian), and so I will happily withdraw the word "silly" since we are moving onto a philosophical level beyond that of mere common sense. (In my own stubborn private world, though, I'm afraid I still like my definition and don't recognize the brick as being intelligent, but we needn't let that come between us.) We now have to determine WHY we consider a human to be more intelligent than a brick. I'd say that the distinction between the brick's intelligence and mine is that I have "a conscious ability to perceive, learn, understand and think about things, and to apply the knowledge thereby acquired". SO FAR AS I KNOW, the brick has none of these attributes. For you, intelligence is "the ability to synthesize at least one response that is correlated with at least one stimulus". I have that in addition to all my other attributes, but AS FAR AS I KNOW, that one is all the brick can offer. I had, perhaps unkindly, given the brick a zero rating for intelligence, but am happy to adjust this to 1 on a scale of 0 to 10 in order to allow for the position you are angling for. However, you have not responded to the question of how you distinguish between instinct and intelligence, and although of course we can't KNOW how conscious other forms are, we must have a reason for having invented these different terms. My definition of intelligence (and obviously David's too) insists on consciousness, but if yours doesn't, it makes very little difference to your comparative scale. We can simply argue that the degree of consciousness will result in a "better quality", rather than saying that no consciousness equals no intelligence. That allows for instinct (a sort of unconscious ability to adapt), which puts the amoeba one step ahead of the brick (apologies to the brick if I'm wrong), but still well below me (unconscious plus conscious). I'm afraid that won't bring us any closer to a definition we can both accept, but perhaps it might lead to a better understanding. -If you don't have time to reply before you leave, have a good break, and thanks again for joining us.

6236 views

ROMANSH: By some definitions we can't be intelligent unless we have consciousness. Is this an assumption or is it simply part of a definition?
> 
> I had deliberately built consciousness into my definition, and since you had yourself concluded that "intelligence is deeply entwined with the concepts of consciousness" etc., I had assumed you would agree. And I also assumed you would agree that bricks were not intelligent. Clearly I should not make such assumptions. For you, intelligence is comparative:
> "I suppose I'm angling for a position where everything has an intelligence, but some things have a much better quality of intelligence, at least by our lights."
> 
I'm not sure what consciousness is, and perhaps we can replace it with a word like "awareness" but I can't help thinking consciousness is not quite what it seems.
> As we don't have any other lights to guide us, we can probably agree that you and I are more intelligent than bricks. 
Most days I would agree :joke:
>The view of the world you're presenting is not very far removed from that of BBella and of Frank (a process theologian), and so I will happily withdraw the word "silly" since we are moving onto a philosophical level beyond that of mere common sense. 
I'm not sure what we were discussing if it is not philosophy? Now last time I checked science is at least a part of philosophy? Ah and I personally would not appeal to common sense. I don't think any particular definition is right or wrong per se. The definitions we choose are just that. -So at which point do a sperm and egg move off the zero and become greater than zero during the development of a pre-zygote into a person? -> I'm afraid that won't bring us any closer to a definition we can both accept, but perhaps it might lead to a better understanding. 
> 
It is not whether I can accept a definition or not. It's more about understanding one another points of view. The good professor's definition leads to some interesting places. We don't have to hold them as gospel truth.
> If you don't have time to reply before you leave, have a good break, and thanks again for joining us.-Thanks :)-I noticed some comments on consciousness; so here is Susan Blackmore's observation on her personal consciousness. - Am I conscious now?
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Books/Tenzen/question1.htm-I found this to be a reasonable approximation as to how I perceive consciousnss, though I did not try achieve consciousness all the time like Blackmore tried.-Also some of the answers posted here to me imply that we must have free will? Am I being intelligent in my observation?

6387 views


> I'm not sure what consciousness is, and perhaps we can replace it with a word like "awareness" but I can't help thinking consciousness is not quite what it seems.-I'd like to jump into this discussion by pointing out that most definitions of consciousness use the word 'self-awareness'. My poodle is aware and he may stare out the window looking for movements of animals, especially squirrels, but how much thinking does he do about himself? A row of monkeys sitting on a bench at sunset in the zoo, are not going to comment on the beauty of the sunset; they are recognizing it is suppertime!-
 
> 
> So at which point do a sperm and egg move off the zero and become greater than zero during the development of a pre-zygote into a person? -'Person' means a human zygote. I'm not sure we can or cannot define a newborn as having a rudiment of consciousness, only the potential from future experience. -> 
> I noticed some comments on consciousness; so here is Susan Blackmore's observation on her personal consciousness. - Am I conscious now?
> http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Books/Tenzen/question1.htm-I'm not a fan of Susan. I've read her book "Dying to Live", with I believe its purposeful misinterpretations of medical reports of out of body and near to death events, observed by licensed physicians, who themselves had been doubters.
Either she is dishonest in her presentations, or ill-prepared to tackle the subject. Trying to concentrate on being conscious, 'nutty'.
> 
> Also some of the answers posted here to me imply that we must have free will? Am I being intelligent in my observation?-You are very intelligent. I'm a firm believer in free will.

6175 views

'Person' means a human zygote. 
Is this your definition or some other definition?-> I'm not sure we can or cannot define a newborn as having a rudiment of consciousness, only the potential from future experience. -OK carbon dioxide, water vapour and nitrogen in the air plus some minerals in the ground also have the potential for future experience. Remnants of the big bang plus stardust also have the potential for future experience.-> I'm not a fan of Susan. I've read her book "Dying to Live", with I believe its purposeful misinterpretations of medical reports of out of body and near to death events, observed by licensed physicians, who themselves had been doubters.-> Either she is dishonest in her presentations, or ill-prepared to tackle the subject. Trying to concentrate on being conscious, 'nutty'.
While I agree based on my experience of psychologists, purely in social circles, that they are a little skewed off the median in terms of nuttiness, but for a phychologist to study consciousness (even her own) is not "nutty" in my opinion.-So you disagreed with her premise that when ask ourselves "Am I conscious now?" we seem to awake? If you disagreed with Susan then two possibilities come to mind - either you are in permament conscious state or permament semiconscious state? No doubt there may be other possibilities.-> I'm a firm believer in free will.
I take you are not an agnostic in any shape or form then - not even an agnostic theist?

6145 views

'Person' means a human zygote. 
> Is this your definition or some other definition?-'Personage' per Adler's approach means a human person, or in the case of God, 'a person like no other person', roughly quoting.
> 
> > I'm not sure we can or cannot define a newborn as having a rudiment of consciousness, only the potential from future experience. -> OK carbon dioxide, water vapour and nitrogen in the air plus some minerals in the ground also have the potential for future experience. Remnants of the big bang plus stardust also have the potential for future experience.-
 Does a brick know it is experiencing anything? To be conscious one must know that it is experiencing whatever, and folds an interpretation of that into its remembered consciousness. 
 -> > I'm not a fan of Susan. I've read her book "Dying to Live", with I believe its purposeful misinterpretations of medical reports of out of body and near to death events, observed by licensed physicians, who themselves had been doubters.-To clarify my comment above: I read the actual reports she refers to, before I read her book. In the sentence below, my hunamist side is trying to be kind, but underneath, I totally mistrust her motivation. Her out of body experience was while on marijuana.-
> > Either she is dishonest in her presentations, or ill-prepared to tackle the subject. Trying to concentrate on being conscious, 'nutty'.-> While I agree based on my experience of psychologists, purely in social circles, that they are a little skewed off the median in terms of nuttiness, but for a phychologist to study consciousness (even her own) is not "nutty" in my opinion.
> 
> So you disagreed with her premise that when ask ourselves "Am I conscious now?" we seem to awake? If you disagreed with Susan then two possibilities come to mind - either you are in permament conscious state or permament semiconscious state? No doubt there may be other possibilities.-I know I am conscious,and have never self-studied it. I am conscious all the time of what is around me unless day-dreaming or asleep and my dreams are a form of consciousness.
> 
> > I'm a firm believer in free will.
> I take you are not an agnostic in any shape or form then - not even an agnostic theist?-I am an agnostic theist by free will conclusions: I cannot fully grasp the concept of God as the universal intelligence I believe in. I have chosen to conclude that He is both within and without the universe as a First Cause, but I have no Greek in my background, and am just now sneaking a peek at Plato and Aristotle.

6160 views

I'm not sure we can or cannot define a newborn as having a rudiment of consciousness, only the potential from future experience. 
> > OK carbon dioxide, water vapour and nitrogen in the air plus some minerals in the ground also have the potential for future experience. Remnants of the big bang plus stardust also have the potential for future experience.
> Does a brick know it is experiencing anything? To be conscious one must know that it is experiencing whatever, and folds an interpretation of that into its remembered consciousness. -I suspect not, at least not in sense I experience my environment.-But you completely missed (or at least did not address) my point. That apparently non intelligent, non conscious, sans free will stuff combines together to form objects that have consciousness, free will and are apparently intelligence? Now you may have a theistic explanation for this? ->> I'm not a fan of Susan. I've read her book "Dying to Live", with I believe its purposeful misinterpretations of medical reports of out of body and near to death events, observed by licensed physicians, who themselves had been doubters.-> To clarify my comment above: I read the actual reports she refers to, before I read her book. In the sentence below, my hunamist side is trying to be kind, but underneath, I totally mistrust her motivation. Her out of body experience was while on marijuana.-I have not read her book, but she did espouse paranormal beliefs at one time, but she has now stepped away from this position.-> I know I am conscious,and have never self-studied it. I am conscious all the time of what is around me unless day-dreaming or asleep and my dreams are a form of consciousness.-I think I am conscious all the time as well, but it's just that I'm not so sure. Is starting a sentence with "I know" agnostic?-> I am an agnostic theist by free will conclusions: I cannot fully grasp the concept of God as the universal intelligence I believe in. I have chosen to conclude that He is both within and without the universe as a First Cause, but I have no Greek in my background, and am just now sneaking a peek at Plato and Aristotle.-I find it difficult to reconcile "I can never know" with "But I'll believe anyway".

6178 views


> But you completely missed (or at least did not address) my point. That apparently non intelligent, non conscious, sans free will stuff combines together to form objects that have consciousness, free will and are apparently intelligence? Now you may have a theistic explanation for this? -Inorganic matter is some of the foodstuff for living beings. We humans have free will and consciousness. We can absorb the inorganic and use it for energy production or other uses. Potassium Iodide is very useful to make thyroid hormone. If God made life, there is a theistic explanation for you.
> 
> I think I am conscious all the time as well, but it's just that I'm not so sure. Is starting a sentence with "I know" agnostic?-Cute. I'm agnostic only in the exact form of God, my term for the universal intelligence in everything.
> 
> > I am an agnostic theist by free will conclusions: I cannot fully grasp the concept of God as the universal intelligence I believe in. I have chosen to conclude that He is both within and without the universe as a First Cause, but I have no Greek in my background, and am just now sneaking a peek at Plato and Aristotle.
> 
> I find it difficult to reconcile "I can never know" with "But I'll believe anyway".-Why not, if you have concluded as I have that I will follow Mortimer J. Adler, and accept that the science I know brings me to 'beyond a reasonable doubt'of His existence..

6135 views

Inorganic matter is some of the foodstuff for living beings. We humans have free will and consciousness. We can absorb the inorganic and use it for energy production or other uses. Potassium Iodide is very useful to make thyroid hormone. If God made life, there is a theistic explanation for you.-I would argue all matter (relevant to the discussion) is likely inorganic in origin - stardust if you will, with the exception of hydrogen. So I gather your position is that it's god that endows with life, consciousness, free will and in turn intelligence? -If so - your evidence?
> Cute. I'm agnostic only in the exact form of God, my term for the universal intelligence in everything.-So is your god a revealed god (theist) or an unrevealed god deist?
> ... and accept that the science I know brings me to 'beyond a reasonable doubt'of His existence..-His?

6139 views


> I would argue all matter (relevant to the discussion) is likely inorganic in origin - stardust if you will, with the exception of hydrogen. So I gather your position is that it's god that endows with life, consciousness, free will and in turn intelligence? 
> 
> If so - your evidence?-The universe started with hydrogen, helium and a litle lithium, all inorganic. Fred Hoyle first explained how the stars made heavier elements. Life could not have appeared before carbon appeared and got spread around the universe by supernovas, setting the stage for the "Fifth Miracle" (thanks to Davies). I don't know how life appeared, but it did ,and by evolution eventually had intelligence and consciousness. Those last two events depended upon The development of nerve cells during the Cambrian Explosion. How did nerve cells appear? I have no idea, but they did. I consider the development of nerves almost as miraculous as the appearance of life itself.-> 
> So is your god a revealed god (theist) or an unrevealed god deist?-I think God is revealed in the brief history I presented above of the universe and the appearance of life, and of nerves, finally producing the human brain.-
> > ... and accept that the science I know brings me to 'beyond a reasonable doubt'of His existence..
> 
> His? -Yes, His. I may not like organized religion, but I think I can use the capital letter, as they do, because I feel I owe the enjoyment of my life to His works. Remember I believe HE is the universal intelligence imbedded within and without the universe (panentheist). A little more convinced than Einstein (who used the term "the old man", but remained agnostic, and Spinoza, who didn't get quite as far as Einstein. (All of us Jews outside our faith.)

6205 views

Romansh,
> 
> I noticed some comments on consciousness; so here is Susan Blackmore's observation on her personal consciousness. - Am I conscious now?
> http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Books/Tenzen/question1.htm
> -Excellent link. Reminds me of my Buddhist years--maintaining this mental state is exactly what the practice of Buddhism is all about. -> I found this to be a reasonable approximation as to how I perceive consciousnss, though I did not try achieve consciousness all the time like Blackmore tried.
> -It is something that I practiced for 6 years--and really--I still DO practice. (That kind of training doesn't leave you.) I highly recommend it; it lets me get quite a bit done in a day. -> Also some of the answers posted here to me imply that we must have free will? Am I being intelligent in my observation?-I still follow a fairly Buddhist version of consciousness, I agree with this implication fully. It is our ability to be aware of and "consciously" carrying out an action that separates us from everything else we've observed.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6144 views

I still follow a fairly Buddhist version of consciousness, I agree with this implication fully. It is our ability to be aware of and "consciously" carrying out an action that separates us from everything else we've observed.-Thanks xeno-I'm not sure what you mean by I agree with this implication fully? I think Blackmore was coming to the conclusion that she is not conscious.-It's funny my wife mediates every day and I tend to be the more logical scientific type (did I just write that?)yet our conclusions are quite similar.-rom

6170 views

ROMANSH: I'm not sure what consciousness is, and perhaps we can replace it with a word like "awareness". -In all definitions we use different words to explain the original word, and you might just as well replace awareness with "consciousness". Although none of us know how consciousness actually works, let me suggest that it is a state in which one is awake, aware of oneself, and aware of what is going on around oneself. Susan Blackmore can agonize as much as she likes over when and whether she is conscious, but since our subject is the nature of intelligence, and I regard consciousness as an integral element of intelligence, this attempt at a definition can at least provide a basis for understanding. You wrote: "It is not whether I can accept a definition or not. It's more about understanding one another's point of view." Indeed. But definitions are a useful way of explaining one's point of view.-I wrote that you and I could probably agree that we are more intelligent than bricks. You responded (rather nicely): "Most days I would agree: joke." I would take that one step further, however, and venture to say that if I asked a dozen people at random whether they thought a brick was intelligent, they would laugh out loud. But if you and your professor argue that a brick IS intelligent because it can synthesize a response with a stimulus, no-one can say you are wrong. You just have a different understanding of the term from mine. And even if you and the professor find that you are outvoted by a billion to two, it still won't mean you're wrong. As you say: "I don't think any particular definition is right or wrong per se. The definitions we choose are just that." By the same token, if I believe in Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot, that is my choice. However, without some sort of consensus on language, communication becomes almost impossible.-I wrote: "we are moving onto a philosophical level beyond that of mere common sense." You responded: "I'm not sure what we were discussing if it is not philosophy? Now last time I checked science is at least part of philosophy?" What we are discussing is indeed philosophy, and I meant that we had moved onto a philosophical level beyond the philosophical level of mere common sense. However, the argument that science is part of philosophy is another problem of definition, which I did discuss earlier with George. You can argue that philosophy = every branch of human knowledge, in which case you are right. Or you can argue that science = the natural sciences (e.g. physics, chemistry, biology etc.) while philosophy = the non-physical branches of knowledge, such as epistemology, ethics, metaphysics etc. One would not expect a degree course in philosophy to include exam papers on the four levels of protein structure, and one would not expect a degree course in chemistry to include exam papers on the Kantian contrast between the noumenon and the phenomenon. -You wrote: "Also some of the answers posted here to me imply that we must have free will?" Am I being intelligent in my observation?" The very fact that you have read, interpreted and commented on some of the answers indicates to me that you have "a conscious ability to perceive, learn, understand and think about things, and to apply the knowledge thereby acquired." According to my definition, then, rest assured ... your observation denotes that you are intelligent!

6211 views

In all definitions we use different words to explain the original word, and you might just as well replace awareness with "consciousness". Although none of us know how consciousness actually works, let me suggest that it is a state in which one is awake, aware of oneself, and aware of what is going on around oneself. 
I don't think we are too far apart here.
>Susan Blackmore can agonize as much as she likes over when and whether she is conscious, but since our subject is the nature of intelligence, and I regard consciousness as an integral element of intelligence, this attempt at a definition can at least provide a basis for understanding. You wrote: "It is not whether I can accept a definition or not. It's more about understanding one another's point of view." Indeed. But definitions are a useful way of explaining one's point of view.-But is it not necessary to understand what conscious is or is not if we want to use it as a part of our definition of intelligence? While some of us may not agree or like Susan, I did find her "agonizing" and accurate approximation of what I experience. Don't get me wrong I have no intention of going all Buddhist. I have no reason to believe anybody elses experience is different to mine, though I am happy to hear to the contrary.->You just have a different understanding of the term from mine. And even if you and the professor find that you are outvoted by a billion to two, it still won't mean you're wrong. As you say: "I don't think any particular definition is right or wrong per se. The definitions we choose are just that." By the same token, if I believe in Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot, that is my choice. However, without some sort of consensus on language, communication becomes almost impossible.-I suspect my use of the word intelligence in everyday parlance is not disimilar to anyone elses. But the title of this thread What Exactly IS Intelligence? leads me to examine this concept a little more closely.-> You can argue that philosophy = every branch of human knowledge, in which case you are right. Or you can argue that science = the natural sciences (e.g. physics, chemistry, biology etc.) while philosophy = the non-physical branches of knowledge, such as epistemology, ethics, metaphysics etc. One would not expect a degree course in philosophy to include exam papers on the four levels of protein structure, and one would not expect a degree course in chemistry to include exam papers on the Kantian contrast between the noumenon and the phenomenon. -I agree; my use of the word philosophy may be a little archaic. But they do hand out PhDs to all sorts of non philosophers. Also I would be highly suspicious of any philosopher who studies noumena without reference to the latest neurological science?-> You wrote: "Also some of the answers posted here to me imply that we must have free will?" Am I being intelligent in my observation?" The very fact that you have read, interpreted and commented on some of the answers indicates to me that you have "a conscious ability to perceive, learn, understand and think about things, and to apply the knowledge thereby acquired." According to my definition, then, rest assured ... your observation denotes that you are intelligent!-It was bit of a rhetorical question. Again but, to use some of the definitions used so far, to me, implies a belief in free will.-I suppose my point is: there's a lot of believing going on considering this is an agnostic website?

6254 views

ROMANSH: But is it not necessary to understand what conscious is or is not if we want to use it as a part of our definition of intelligence?-Yes, it's necessary to understand every element of a definition, but unfortunately there will then be no end to the process. If I define intelligence as "a conscious ability to perceive, learn, understand and think about things, and to apply the knowledge thereby acquired", you could ask for a definition of every single term, and a definition of every term in every definition. We would end up with a book. That's why I said that without some sort of consensus on language, communication becomes almost impossible. -Additionally, one is almost certain to get so bogged down in definitions of definitions that one digresses endlessly from the original subject ... hence our movement away from intelligence and onto consciousness and philosophy. There's also the all too obvious fact that the more you think, the less certain you become, which is a good thing in some fields, but paralyzing in others! Having said all that, I appreciate your spurring us on to examine the concept a little more closely. You have made me ... and continue to make me ... think about it and clarify my own ideas, which is part and parcel of our discussions. But having said THAT, I have now gallantly explained exactly what I consider intelligence to be, and when challenged have also explained exactly what I consider consciousness to be, and so I would dearly love to claim the $64,000 prize. No-one has yet said why I shouldn't.-We've agreed about philosophy, and I take your point about noumena and neurological science. Although this is very much an age of specialization, the fact is that no branch of knowledge can function independently of others.-As regards your rhetorical question, I must confess I deliberately steered clear of "free will", and it does not figure in my attempt at a definition of intelligence. It has, however, come up indirectly in my discussion with Matt on robots, as I have argued that a robot has to be programmed (= it doesn't have free will), which of course raises all kinds of questions about our own "programming". David believes we do have free will. Perhaps we all believe we have it, since we are constantly and consciously taking decisions, but if we could step outside ourselves and see all the forces that have shaped us, we would not ... in my agnostic view ... know whether we had it or not.-You wrote that "there's a lot of believing going on considering this is an agnostic website". I regard it as a colossal stroke of luck that we have a "resident" panentheist (David) and a "resident" atheist (George), who are constantly providing us with challenging insights, while even the agnostics among us have widely differing views on many subjects. For a while we had a vicar who also engendered lively discussions. We can all learn from one another, even if some of us may never jump down from our fence.

6213 views


> We can all learn from one another, even if some of us may never jump down from our fence.-If we keep piling up scientific facts on both sides of the fence, the jump down may become quite small.

6167 views

DAVID: If we keep piling up scientific facts on both sides of the fence, the jump down may become quite small.-Or the facts will cover the fence, and leave me sitting right in the middle of the field.

6163 views

If I define intelligence as "a conscious ability to perceive, learn, understand and think about things, and to apply the knowledge thereby acquired", you could ask for a definition of every single term, and a definition of every term in every definition. We would end up with a book. That's why I said that without some sort of consensus on language, communication becomes almost impossible. -As I said in my opening, intelligence is deeply entwined with life, consciousnes, free will - as it happens I'm not a strong proponent of these concepts. For example can we have intelligence without free will by your definition?
> Additionally, one is almost certain to get so bogged down in definitions of definitions that one digresses endlessly from the original subject ... hence our movement away from intelligence and onto consciousness and philosophy. There's also the all too obvious fact that the more you think, the less certain you become, which is a good thing in some fields, but paralyzing in others! Having said all that, I appreciate your spurring us on to examine the concept a little more closely. You have made me ... and continue to make me ... think about it and clarify my own ideas, which is part and parcel of our discussions. But having said THAT, I have now gallantly explained exactly what I consider intelligence to be, and when challenged have also explained exactly what I consider consciousness to be, and so I would dearly love to claim the $64,000 prize. No-one has yet said why I shouldn't.-;) I'm sorry dhw, giving a definition alone does not get you any prizes. But by your definition at which point in a person's development does that person metamorphose from non-intelligent to intelligent? I accept there are shades of grey here, but you do hold at some point in development that person is not intelligent?-> As regards your rhetorical question, I must confess I deliberately steered clear of "free will", and it does not figure in my attempt at a definition of intelligence. It has, however, come up indirectly in my discussion with Matt on robots, as I have argued that a robot has to be programmed (= it doesn't have free will), which of course raises all kinds of questions about our own "programming". David believes we do have free will. Perhaps we all believe we have it, since we are constantly and consciously taking decisions, but if we could step outside ourselves and see all the forces that have shaped us, we would not ... in my agnostic view ... know whether we had it or not.-Life appears to be in part preprogrammed. According to Steven Pinker in his The Blank State about 40% to 50% of our behavioural traits might be ascribed to genetics?
 
> I regard it as a colossal stroke of luck that we have a "resident" panentheist (David) -Quite so.

6165 views

ROMANSH: As I said in my opening, intelligence is deeply entwined with life, consciousness, free will [...] can we have intelligence without free will by your definition?-As I said in my response, I don't know if ... or at least to what extent ... we have free will. Pinker (The Blank Slate, not State ... it's Matt's tabula rasa) says about 40% to 50% of our behavioural traits might be ascribed to genetics. I don't know how he gets to that figure. Nor do I know what percentage is caused by other factors beyond our control, such as disease, our environment, our upbringing. All I can say is that I feel that I have free will, and I act accordingly. If science proved, however, that 100% of my behaviour is dictated by conditions beyond my control, I'd have to say I don't have free will. But yes, I would still have intelligence in accordance with my definition, because I would still have the conscious ability to perceive, understand, think, apply my knowledge etc., i.e. I'm still thinking and am aware that I'm thinking, even if I may not be aware of the various factors that are influencing my thinking.-ROMANSH: I'm sorry dhw, giving a definition alone does not get you any prizes. But by your definition at which point in a person's development does that person metamorphose from non-intelligent to intelligent? I accept that there are shades of grey here, but do you hold at some point in development that a person is not intelligent? -I am devastated at not getting the prize! I shall report you to the International Philosophical Awards Committee for changing the rules halfway through the game. The question asked is: What exactly IS intelligence? The answer has to be a definition. You are now asking an entirely different question: at what point does a person qualify as being intelligent? You more or less accepted my definition of consciousness as a state in which one is awake, aware of oneself, and aware of what is going on around oneself. You didn't challenge it by asking at what point does a baby become aware of itself: two seconds after birth, two months, two years, first cry, first laugh, first word? We don't know. Similarly, you can't pin intelligence down to a specific point at which "no" turns into "yes". But that doesn't invalidate the definition. I want my prize!

6153 views

My bad - typo The Blank Slate-Pinker cites studies based studies on siblings of various kinds that had been separated a birth and had been left with either the birth family or had been adopted. Technically I should have said the "differences" in our behaviour. -
> I am devastated at not getting the prize! I shall report you to the International Philosophical Awards Committee for changing the rules halfway through the game. 
:)
> The question asked is: What exactly IS intelligence? The answer has to be a definition. You are now asking an entirely different question: at what point does a person qualify as being intelligent? You more or less accepted my definition of consciousness as a state in which one is awake, aware of oneself, and aware of what is going on around oneself. You didn't challenge it by asking at what point does a baby become aware of itself: two seconds after birth, two months, two years, first cry, first laugh, first word? We don't know. Similarly, you can't pin intelligence down to a specific point at which "no" turns into "yes". But that doesn't invalidate the definition. I want my prize!-This is exactly my point. So is there a point at which we are conscious and another where we are not, and a point where we are intelligent and another where we are not intelligent but simply can't measure it? Or are you suggesting that this concept of "yes-no" is ridiculous?

6121 views

In response to the question that forms the subject of this thread, I have offered what I would like to believe is a clear definition. However, I have not been awarded the Prix de Romansh, and instead have been asked:-"So is there a point at which we are conscious and another where we are not, and a point at which we are intelligent and another where we are not intelligent but simply can't measure it? Or are you suggesting that this concept of "yes-no" is ridiculous?"-I'm mystified as to why you think I might regard it as ridiculous. You have quoted my response, and then ignored it! I wrote (about consciousness): "We don't know. Similarly, you can't pin intelligence down to a specific point at which "no" turns into "yes"." -However, since you won't accept "we don't know" as an answer (I will happily change that to "I don't know" if you prefer it), let me pursue a question I asked earlier and which you did not respond to. How do you distinguish between instinct and intelligence, is there a specific point at which the one turns into the other, and if so where is it? My own answer is that instinctive behaviour is unconscious whereas intelligent behaviour is conscious, but I do not know if there is a specific point at which the one turns into the other. -I would also be interested to know precisely why you are not prepared to accept my definition of intelligence.

6086 views

However, since you won't accept "we don't know" as an answer (I will happily change that to "I don't know" if you prefer it), let me pursue a question I asked earlier and which you did not respond to. 
dhw
This is not quite what I meant - my apologies. My question is there a line between intellgent/non-intelligent or conscious/unconscious in a human being's development? If your answer is I don't know fair enough, for I don't either. But in that case could it extend to before conception? My answer of course is I also don't know. But this line of reasoning extends to my professor's definition?-
> How do you distinguish between instinct and intelligence, is there a specific point at which the one turns into the other, and if so where is it? My own answer is that instinctive behaviour is unconscious whereas intelligent behaviour is conscious, but I do not know if there is a specific point at which the one turns into the other. -In pragmatic everyday conversations it would be conscious and unconscious behaviours/actions/choices etc. But with careful reflection I suspect I might not distinguish between the two.-> I would also be interested to know precisely why you are not prepared to accept my definition of intelligence.-I have no great dislike or great philosophical objection. If I were to argue against your definition: you are replacing one imponderable (intelligence) with another (consciousness)?-> dhw - Despite Pinker's figure of 40% to 50%, I don't see how we can quantify escapable and inescapable influences ... which is a typically agnostic way of saying I don't know to what extent our will is free.-My background as a chemist has shown me the law of mass action
> The product of the apparent concentrations of the products divided by the product of the apparent concentrations is equal to a constant
has shown me that it is an accurate predictor of behaviour of molecules. Now which bit of me is not described the law of mass action? This is where free will would have to reside. Unless someone can point to another place because I cannot envisage something else!

6112 views

ROMANSH: My question is there a line between intelligent/non-intelligent or conscious/unconscious in a human being's development? If your answer is I don't know fair enough, for I don't either. But in that case could it extend to before conception? My answer of course is I don't know. But this line of reasoning extends to my professor's definition?-I don't see how an individual human being can exist, let alone be intelligent, before conception, unless you believe in reincarnation. Or are you suggesting that the egg (or the sperm) is already a human being prior to fertilization? I think I'd only extend my don't-know answer as far as the foetus. With regard to your professor's definition ("the ability of an entity to synthesize at least one response that is correlated with at least one stimulus"), as we have noted, it can be applied to entities that are non-organic and, as far as we know, have no conscious ability to think, learn, apply knowledge etc. I don't believe that in your heart of hearts you really attribute intelligence to your famous brick, even though we can't prove it, and so if I'm right, this will leave us almost agreeing on my definition, and completely agreeing that we don't know if or where there's a line between intelligent/non-intelligent etc. in a human being's development.
 
However, you have a caveat: you think I'm "replacing one imponderable (intelligence) with another (consciousness)." I'm not replacing one with another, since consciousness is only part of my definition, but in any case when challenged I also defined consciousness. If we combine my two definitions for the sake of clarity, we get: "the ability ... during a state in which one is awake, aware of oneself, and aware of what is going on around oneself ... to perceive, learn, understand and think about things, and to apply the knowledge thereby acquired." No room for bricks, but I see that as an advantage over your professor's definition!-On the subject of free will, if I've understood you correctly (I'm not a scientist, so please forgive me if I've got this wrong), you are suggesting that "the law of mass action" would at least theoretically enable accurate prediction of human behaviour, and since we are made of molecules, the implication is that there is no place for free will. This goes to the very heart of our discussions. We may feel that our thoughts, decisions, memories, imagination, will, self-awareness etc. are somehow independent of the body, and are at least partly controlled by an autonomous identity, but are they and the identity just molecules behaving predictably? If so, how can physical matter produce such apparently non-physical activities and faculties? I can't answer either question, and that's one reason why I remain agnostic.

6117 views

I don't see how an individual human being can exist, let alone be intelligent, before conception, unless you believe in reincarnation. Or are you suggesting that the egg (or the sperm) is already a human being prior to fertilization? 
I did not quite say that; I was referring a human being's development 
Philosophically speaking this would go back to the formation carbon in stars and further back in a euphemistic creation.-> I think I'd only extend my don't-know answer as far as the foetus. 
OK so at what point does a foetus begin and end?
I'll keep questioning any boundary you choose. 
> With regard to your professor's definition ("the ability of an entity to synthesize at least one response that is correlated with at least one stimulus"), as we have noted, it can be applied to entities that are non-organic and, as far as we know, have no conscious ability to think, learn, apply knowledge etc. 
Quite - now do you believe that only CHON ( primarily carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and trace elements) entities can have intelligence?->I don't believe that in your heart of hearts you really attribute intelligence to your famous brick, even though we can't prove it, and so if I'm right, this will leave us almost agreeing on my definition, and completely agreeing that we don't know if or where there's a line between intelligent/non-intelligent etc. in a human being's development.
Perhaps - I would agree my intuitive answer would be much like yours. But to steal and modify a concept from Carl Sagan, I try not to reason with my heart of hearts.-But my good professor's definition and my reason lead me suspect that intelligence may be a continuum rather than "no" - "yes" followed by a scale.
 
> However, you have a caveat: you think I'm "replacing one imponderable (intelligence) with another (consciousness)." I'm not replacing one with another, since consciousness is only part of my definition, but in any case when challenged I also defined consciousness. If we combine my two definitions for the sake of clarity, we get: "the ability ... during a state in which one is awake, aware of oneself, and aware of what is going on around oneself ... to perceive, learn, understand and think about things, and to apply the knowledge thereby acquired." No room for bricks, but I see that as an advantage over your professor's definition!
Again I have no problem with your definition, it is far more pragmatic or useful in someways - especially when dealing with human affairs. But I suspect it is not an accurate representation of reality.
 
> On the subject of free will, if I've understood you correctly (I'm not a scientist, so please forgive me if I've got this wrong), you are suggesting that "the law of mass action" would at least theoretically enable accurate prediction of human behaviour, 
This is quite often people's deduction of the deterministic premise. When we think carefully about determinism it shows us whatever it is, we or any part of the universe is ultimately unpredictable. Two caveats of course, one, we can predict trajectories of billiard balls etc in isolated systems etc. Two, magical demons that are oblivious to cause and effect may be able to theoretically predict our behaviour. -> and since we are made of molecules, the implication is that there is no place for free will. This goes to the very heart of our discussions. We may feel that our thoughts, decisions, memories, imagination, will, self-awareness etc. are somehow independent of the body, and are at least partly controlled by an autonomous identity, but are they and the identity just molecules behaving predictably? 
Agree
> If so, how can physical matter produce such apparently non-physical activities and faculties? I can't answer either question, and that's one reason why I remain agnostic.-Yep

6075 views

ROMANSH: Philosophically speaking this [a human being's development] would go back to the formation carbon in stars and further back in a euphemistic creation.-[...] OK so at what point does a foetus begin and end? I'll keep questioning any boundary you choose.-[...] now do you believe that only CHON (primarily carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and trace elements) entities can have intelligence?-I'm sorry, but I daren't start talking chemistry with you, and philosophically speaking, you are right. You can question any boundary, and so I shall henceforth refrain from such foolhardy statements!-I do believe, though, that only a live, conscious entity can have intelligence, but I haven't a clue where instinct (unconscious behaviour) ends and conscious intelligence begins, and even the borders between life and non-life are indistinct. Consequently, we more or less have to choose what level we're going to think on. In your previous post, you said that "in pragmatic everyday conversations" you would accept the conscious/unconscious distinction between intelligence and instinct, and you say that "intuitively" your answer regarding the brick would be much like mine, while my definition of intelligence is "far more pragmatic and useful in some ways" than your professor's. You balance this by saying that your professor's definition and your reason lead you to "suspect that intelligence may be a continuum rather than "no" ... "yes" followed by a scale", and you also "suspect it [my definition] is not an accurate representation of reality." I would expand your suspicions to most of what we think we know about "reality". On an overall philosophical level, it seems to me that virtually nothing is clear-cut, and because our knowledge is so limited (remember the Popper quote?), we CAN only operate on pragmatic levels. Science can investigate the material world, and philosophers can speculate about meaning, but nobody can draw definitive conclusions about "reality", and so we're left with beliefs plus suspicions that our beliefs may not be accurate. You and I are therefore probably in agreement on all levels, which may be as far as we can hope to go.

6027 views

I do believe, though, that only a live, conscious entity can have intelligence, but I haven't a clue where instinct (unconscious behaviour) ends and conscious intelligence begins, and even the borders between life and non-life are indistinct. 
I again agree that we can chase the boundaries life and non life. Conscious and entities that are incapable of consciousness. In fact these borders are simply a matter of human defintion. We observe animals, plants and bricks behave differently at least a birds eye view. And we ultimately put them into 'appropriate' boxes. But the human mind is a consumate classifier.-> Consequently, we more or less have to choose what level we're going to think on. .... I would expand your suspicions to most of what we think we know about "reality". On an overall philosophical level, it seems to me that virtually nothing is clear-cut, and because our knowledge is so limited (remember the Popper quote?), we CAN only operate on pragmatic levels. Science can investigate the material world, and philosophers can speculate about meaning, but nobody can draw definitive conclusions about "reality", and so we're left with beliefs plus suspicions that our beliefs may not be accurate. You and I are therefore probably in agreement on all levels, which may be as far as we can hope to go.-I would agree nothing can be perceived ultimately accurate (or more accurately I cannot ascertain a mechanism for attaining such truths). But that does not mean one definition is better not at explaining what intelligence is than another, in a reality sense. Now if we are discussing a proposed creator of the universe (which I'm loathed to do - I have the same aversion to such beings as you do of chemistry ;) ) Your definition may be useful; but I suspect my professor's defintion might be more useful when discussing a more deterministic universe?-Regarding perceiving reality - I agree I don't know how to be sure what I'm perceiving is accurate; but based on the evidence some methods to appear to better predictors of reality than others.

6035 views

As regards your rhetorical question, I must confess I deliberately steered clear of "free will", and it does not figure in my attempt at a definition of intelligence. It has, however, come up indirectly in my discussion with Matt on robots, as I have argued that a robot has to be programmed (= it doesn't have free will), which of course raises all kinds of questions about our own "programming". David believes we do have free will. Perhaps we all believe we have it, since we are constantly and consciously taking decisions, but if we could step outside ourselves and see all the forces that have shaped us, we would not ... in my agnostic view ... know whether we had it or not >-As regards to free will, it seems to me, yes and no. We, humans/animals/robots, etc., have free will to choose within the choices given (gene/environment tendencies considered). Whether we choose a, b or z, could be considered free will, although we do not have free to choose what is not an available choice.-Like the baby in the play pen example I've given before; the baby can only choose from the choices given, no more, no less. By design or evolution, whichever, free will is limited to the ingredients of stardust (the play pen). The ingredients of stardust contained all that we are today as well as our available choices, no more, no less.-This does not mean that we know all of our choices or have grown to understand all of our choices. Just like the baby in the play pen, the baby will grow out of the play pen and grow to choose different choices it had no idea was available all the time. We as stardust grow and as we do our available choices grow with us. But never will we have a choice to choose more than we are capable of choosing or than we have available to us.

6124 views


> This does not mean that we know all of our choices or have grown to understand all of our choices. Just like the baby in the play pen, the baby will grow out of the play pen and grow to choose different choices it had no idea was available all the time. We as stardust grow and as we do our available choices grow with us. But never will we have a choice to choose more than we are capable of choosing or than we have available to us.-An excellent analysis. My concept of free will fits this definition.

6175 views


> > This does not mean that we know all of our choices or have grown to understand all of our choices. Just like the baby in the play pen, the baby will grow out of the play pen and grow to choose different choices it had no idea was available all the time. We as stardust grow and as we do our available choices grow with us. But never will we have a choice to choose more than we are capable of choosing or than we have available to us.
> 
> An excellent analysis. My concept of free will fits this definition.-If this is your idea of free will, than robots already exercise it.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6132 views


> > > This does not mean that we know all of our choices or have grown to understand all of our choices. Just like the baby in the play pen, the baby will grow out of the play pen and grow to choose different choices it had no idea was available all the time. We as stardust grow and as we do our available choices grow with us. But never will we have a choice to choose more than we are capable of choosing or than we have available to us.
> > 
> > An excellent analysis. My concept of free will fits this definition.
> 
> If this is your idea of free will, than robots already exercise it.-I think you misunderstand her reasoning. I should let her defend herself. She is not determanistic. As intellect grows our mental concepts grow also, and our achievements follow right along with this growth. We cannot work with materials that don't exist until we create them. Cavemen did not have stainless steel to cook with. Element 140 doeesn't exist yet, to stretch my reasoning. Cavemen do not understand the concepts we deal with. Specialization in thought means that you understand programming, and i don't, but I can use the resluts of your knowledge to expand my horizons as I browse the internet for information, conceptual or factual. We are a long way, if ever, that a robot will browse the internet, find fatual information and innitiate a new concept, not yet thought of by a human.

6121 views

David,
> > > > 
> > > > This does not mean that we know all of our choices or have grown to understand all of our choices. Just like the baby in the play pen, the baby will grow out of the play pen and grow to choose different choices it had no idea was available all the time. We as stardust grow and as we do our available choices grow with us. But never will we have a choice to choose more than we are capable of choosing or than we have available to us.
> > > 
> > > An excellent analysis. My concept of free will fits this definition.
> > 
> > If this is your idea of free will, than robots already exercise it.
> 
> I think you misunderstand her reasoning. I should let her defend herself. She is not determanistic. As intellect grows our mental concepts grow also, and our achievements follow right along with this growth. We cannot work with materials that don't exist until we create them. Cavemen did not have stainless steel to cook with. Element 140 doeesn't exist yet, to stretch my reasoning. Cavemen do not understand the concepts we deal with. Specialization in thought means that you understand programming, and i don't, but I can use the resluts of your knowledge to expand my horizons as I browse the internet for information, conceptual or factual. We are a long way, if ever, that a robot will browse the internet, find fatual information and innitiate a new concept, not yet thought of by a human.-Okay, so we're in agreement: we're only talking about an epistemological boundary; All knowledge is based on modification or application of previous knowledge. -You're extending an assertion that robot's won't be capable of creating a new concept. For example, robots would only ever be able to work in "normal" science, never in paradigmatic science? -I don't see the connection here to Free Will. To me, what you guys are talking about is that robots can only make choices based on what choices they're allowed to make--which is no different than what we do. A human being cannot make a choice beyond that which he cannot conceive. Someone with an IQ of 85 is unlikely to create the "Theory of Everything." Humans have absolute freedom to make any choices within their box; so are robots. In this particular definition of Free Will--robots exercise this exactly, yet we would all agree that they don't actually have "free will" because we understand "free will" to be a property of sentience.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6232 views


> Okay, so we're in agreement: we're only talking about an epistemological boundary; All knowledge is based on modification or application of previous knowledge. 
> 
> You're extending an assertion that robot's won't be capable of creating a new concept. For example, robots would only ever be able to work in "normal" science, never in paradigmatic science? 
> 
> I don't see the connection here to Free Will. To me, what you guys are talking about is that robots can only make choices based on what choices they're allowed to make--which is no different than what we do. A human being cannot make a choice beyond that which he cannot conceive. Someone with an IQ of 85 is unlikely to create the "Theory of Everything." Humans have absolute freedom to make any choices within their box; so are robots. In this particular definition of Free Will--robots exercise this exactly, yet we would all agree that they don't actually have "free will" because we understand "free will" to be a property of sentience.-The connection to free will is the 'box' concept. Free Will is limited by our knowledge, as you appear to agree to above. Bella uses the word playpen. I think we can conclude that robots will always be boxed, and can only act within their box, but among humans, there are Einsteins who open up whole new areas of boxes and we all join in, if we choose. This is free will in intellectual study. I've been reading a new book on scholastic philosophy, using Thomism to show that God exists. I know its a throwback, but I'm not sure modern philosophy is correct. After all, Adler, in his book was proving things all over again, and then died a Catholic. Both he can St. Thomas used maintaining the system as a key point. My point is (I'm really not off topic) that by free will I'm opening up my knowledge.

6126 views


> > Okay, so we're in agreement: we're only talking about an epistemological boundary; All knowledge is based on modification or application of previous knowledge. 
> > 
> > You're extending an assertion that robot's won't be capable of creating a new concept. For example, robots would only ever be able to work in "normal" science, never in paradigmatic science? 
> > 
> > I don't see the connection here to Free Will. To me, what you guys are talking about is that robots can only make choices based on what choices they're allowed to make--which is no different than what we do. A human being cannot make a choice beyond that which he cannot conceive. Someone with an IQ of 85 is unlikely to create the "Theory of Everything." Humans have absolute freedom to make any choices within their box; so are robots. In this particular definition of Free Will--robots exercise this exactly, yet we would all agree that they don't actually have "free will" because we understand "free will" to be a property of sentience.
> 
> The connection to free will is the 'box' concept. Free Will is limited by our knowledge, as you appear to agree to above. Bella uses the word playpen. I think we can conclude that robots will always be boxed, and can only act within their box, but among humans, there are Einsteins who open up whole new areas of boxes and we all join in, if we choose. This is free will in intellectual study. I've been reading a new book on scholastic philosophy, using Thomism to show that God exists. I know its a throwback, but I'm not sure modern philosophy is correct. After all, Adler, in his book was proving things all over again, and then died a Catholic. Both he can St. Thomas used maintaining the system as a key point. My point is (I'm really not off topic) that by free will I'm opening up my knowledge.-I would be interested in mining you sometime for your thoughts on Modern philosophy; as someone who adheres to moral contextualism and radical skepticism the concept that ANYTHING can be universal seems... quaint at best. I've said it before, but the only irreducible truth I can find in regards to morals or "universal truth" is the fact that people can't exist without other people. It's the only basis for a constant ethical morality that I can think of. -In regards to Adler; many of his arguments (at least in the one book I've read) are easily countered--again it was his more Thomist or Aristotelian arguments. Weaker still is his assertion that we can be epistemically justified making a negative claim without positive evidence for it. He falls into the identical territory as atheists stating "God does not exist."

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6144 views

I would be interested in mining you sometime for your thoughts on Modern philosophy; as someone who adheres to moral contextualism and radical skepticism the concept that ANYTHING can be universal seems... quaint at best. -I do not have any background in any kind of philosophic thought. One general course in college, a little Adler,and a book I am currently reading that I alluded to. My own philosophy is probably greatly influenced by 40+ years in medicine, with our own way of thinking. Occam's razor in diagnosis. I guess you will have to pick away and perhaps we will find I know more than I think

6122 views

BBella,-> > As regards your rhetorical question, I must confess I deliberately steered clear of "free will", and it does not figure in my attempt at a definition of intelligence. It has, however, come up indirectly in my discussion with Matt on robots, as I have argued that a robot has to be programmed (= it doesn't have free will), which of course raises all kinds of questions about our own "programming". David believes we do have free will. Perhaps we all believe we have it, since we are constantly and consciously taking decisions, but if we could step outside ourselves and see all the forces that have shaped us, we would not ... in my agnostic view ... know whether we had it or not >
> 
> As regards to free will, it seems to me, yes and no. We, humans/animals/robots, etc., have free will to choose within the choices given (gene/environment tendencies considered). Whether we choose a, b or z, could be considered free will, although we do not have free to choose what is not an available choice.
> 
> Like the baby in the play pen example I've given before; the baby can only choose from the choices given, no more, no less. By design or evolution, whichever, free will is limited to the ingredients of stardust (the play pen). The ingredients of stardust contained all that we are today as well as our available choices, no more, no less.
> 
> This does not mean that we know all of our choices or have grown to understand all of our choices. Just like the baby in the play pen, the baby will grow out of the play pen and grow to choose different choices it had no idea was available all the time. We as stardust grow and as we do our available choices grow with us. But never will we have a choice to choose more than we are capable of choosing or than we have available to us.-Strangely, I find your argument here to be highly deterministic; how would human creativity play into your line of reasoning here?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6144 views

As regards to free will, it seems to me, yes and no. We, humans/animals/robots, etc., have free will to choose within the choices given (gene/environment tendencies considered). Whether we choose a, b or z, could be considered free will, although we do not have free to choose what is not an available choice.-For me this is not free will. I am willing to concede that we make decisions all the time, albeit constrained by our environment. But then again so does my Excel spreadsheet. Free will is not about making choices per se. -The question I have to ask is which bit of me is independent of my environment, which bit of me can somehow circumnavigate the law of mass action without falling into some probablistic hole which is no better? -I'm also happy to concede that I feel like I have free will and that my ego appears to behave in such a manner.

6106 views


> Free will is not about making choices per se. 
> 
> I'm also happy to concede that I feel like I have free will and that my ego appears to behave in such a manner.-Will you define your version of free will, please.

6169 views


> > Free will is not about making choices per se. 
> > 
> > I'm also happy to concede that I feel like I have free will and that my ego appears to behave in such a manner.
> 
> Will you define your version of free will, please.
No problem, this is my personal definition
> The ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe

6117 views


> > > Free will is not about making choices per se. 
> > > 
> > > I'm also happy to concede that I feel like I have free will and that my ego appears to behave in such a manner.
> > 
> > Will you define your version of free will, please.
> No problem, this is my personal definition
> > The ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe-
I would fully agree, and if you don't mind I will use that brief sentence as my definition also )

6167 views

The ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe
> I would fully agree, and if you don't mind I will use that brief sentence as my definition also )-Sure no problem - but I discussed this with people (well a person) who disagrees with this definition because free will itself is simply a non sequitur.

6135 views

The ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe
> > I would fully agree, and if you don't mind I will use that brief sentence as my definition also )
> 
> Sure no problem - but I discussed this with people (well a person) who disagrees with this definition because free will itself is simply a non sequitur.-I'm still with you. the objection is semantic rubbish

6161 views

BBELLA (on the subject of free will): But never will we have the choice to choose more than we are capable of choosing or than we have available to us.-ROMANSH: Free will is not about making choices per se. The question I have to ask is which bit of me is independent of my environment, which bit of me can somehow circumnavigate the law of mass action without falling into some probabilistic hole which is no better?-Ideally, perhaps we should have opened a new thread for this subject, but let's see how far it takes us. I'm not sure that I understand the second half of the question Romansh has to ask, but I agree with the rest and with Matt's highly pertinent question regarding human creativity. David has asked for a definition, and I'm going to make my usual bid for glory by offering one of my own. How about this: the conscious ability to make decisions independently of constraints beyond one's own control? "Decisions" encompasses creativity and, I think, all other human activities, including choices.-I would extend Romansh's question especially to the genetic make-up, and I would apply it to BBella's comment that we can't choose more than we are capable of choosing. What is it that defines and restricts our capability of choosing or deciding? I can only repeat the problem I tried to outline in my discussion with Romansh: to what extent are we controlled by our genes, our upbringing, our environment? To what extent can we control our own circumstances and experiences, and our reactions to circumstances and experiences that we do not create for ourselves? Some religious sects believe in predestination, but I don't think any of us would accept that, so I hope we can ignore it. However, it could be argued that our genes, environment etc. also predestine us. Despite Pinker's figure of 40% to 50%, I don't see how we can quantify escapable and inescapable influences ... which is a typically agnostic way of saying I don't know to what extent our will is free. However, I'm with Romansh again in conceding "that I feel like I have free will and that my ego appears to behave in such a manner."

6089 views

This is a useful definition from a scientific perspective--at first glance; probably one of the best I've seen yet. But it does allow for some silly formulations. How would you rate one subject being more intelligent than another? Or better yet, how would you rate something like musical or artistic intelligence, when they arise from a stimulus that cannot be verified by a third party? Even the definition you provide misses a great deal of things that we have come to accept to be human intelligence.
> 
> It's from a computing professor at George Washington University, I'll have to read his book. So it is a scientific definition, you are right; is this inappropriate for this kind of discussion?
> -Well there's a difference. You've proposed (through the prof) a method to define intelligence; it isn't inappropriate, but it is woefully incomplete. It's suitable for AI research (I'm starting my Master's in Computer Science, btw) but it only describes perceptive intelligence. -I use the same definition as M. Adler for perceptive intelligence, but again, it only addresses one type of intelligence, and in context to my original post--wouldn't tell us anything of consequence about the creator. If it's intelligent and capable of knowing what we are up to, it could simply refuse to participate, which would of course be an intelligent response, though it would result in our (wrong) conclusion that our godly test subject that it was not intelligent. -In the previous discussion, I surmised that if this universe was designed, than clearly the designer has to have two things.-1. A memory.
2. Symbolic reasoning. -David Turell (our self-appointed ID gadfly ) promptly denied my ability to make these inferences, which lead to me asking the question in my original post. If we assert that the designer has no memory and/or no ability for symbolic reasoning, what would this intelligence be?-> I don't actually think the formulations are silly - despite the prospect of ever so slightly intelligent bricks. But it does give us a different perspective on our place in the universe (if we have one at all?)
> 
> So which is more intelligent an amoeba or a brick? Instinctively I would say an amoeba. But in saying so I'm anthropomorphizing an intent for that amoeba. Do you agree? Both objects react and interact with their environment. Bricks bind with calcium oxide and silica in the cement and amoeba adsorb and metabolize organic nutrients in their environment.-You argue similarly to Aristotle, who looked at all non-humans as soulless automata. Does the Amoeba, in its ability to eat, respirate, find mates and reproduce, have any more intelligence than a brick? On some levels I can agree with you, but buried here is the implied argument is that ultimately, human intelligence relies upon some critical threshold of brain complexity. Adler argues pretty persuasively here that we haven't come close to answering that question yet. -The difference between a brick and an amoeba is that the amoeba is self-driven. It's cellular machinery carry out its tasks as if it were a program, directed by its genome. This doesn't imply intelligence, but we can safely say that on earth, intelligence requires access to DNA. (At least at this stage.)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6180 views

Could this be described as intelligence that is completely different to ours?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18391-intelligent-oil-droplet-navigates-chemical-maze.html

6085 views

Could this be described as intelligence that is completely different to ours?
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18391-intelligent-oil-droplet-navigates-chemical-... pH difference described in the article is the same as a dog on a leash. Neither is an example of intelligence. Now the dog off the leash performs a trick he has been taught: simple intelligence. Now the dog spots my 'going-out' hat and runs to hide so as to avoid his kennel. A higher integrative form of intelligence. Obviously your question leads to a spectrum of definitions.

6058 views

Quite
But then again which neuron in my brain is not behaving according to the same laws of mass action - chemistry?

6135 views

Quite
> But then again which neuron in my brain is not behaving according to the same laws of mass action - chemistry?-With 100 billion neurons, and who knows exactly how many branching axons, the branching mediated in part by what one has learned and concluded, no two brains are the same, ever! How many gazillion synapses? No one knows. All mediated by chemistry and the production of ions. And that despised measure I.Q., is definitely elevated depending on how you are approached by Mum, how many words in her vocabulary, how many books are read to you before school, and the attitude toward learning embued by your parents.-And I might add, what is one's willingness to be an autodidact?

6067 views

No one knows. All mediated by chemistry and the production of ions. 
So are you saying there may be a neuron or synapse that does not respond to cause and effect? Well I suppose this is testable, but I'm not volunteering for that experiment. -> And I might add, what is one's willingness to be an autodidact?-A reflection of one's environment. What else?

6038 views

No one knows. All mediated by chemistry and the production of ions. 
> So are you saying there may be a neuron or synapse that does not respond to cause and effect? Well I suppose this is testable, but I'm not volunteering for that experiment. -
I doubt that synapses refuse to respond, unless an impulse from another neuron blocks the response, which raises another issue of complexity. What is beyond doubt at this moment is no one knows what consciousness is in relation to the brain. It 'seems' to arise from the brain, but at a level that makes it 'feel' separate from the brain, as each of us experiences it. it must be a quantum effect involving spookiness at a distance, a la Einstein. Nothing else feels right.

6052 views

it must be a quantum effect involving spookiness at a distance, a la Einstein. Nothing else feels right.-It must be? Reminds of Billy Graham's Angels (In a different context) Graham used angels as an explanation as there apparently could be no other explanation?-"I don't know and will await more evidence" feels right to me.

6102 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum