OfficerJones Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 (edited) Every time I hear the phrase "intelligent life", or see a documentary about the miraculous problem-solving abilities of a non-human animal, I'm reminded how self-centered the human species is, and rightfully so. A certain amount of self-importance and self-deception is required for an organism to assert itself on its environment and achieve its full potential. I'd like to assert that intelligence is common to all of life. Its just that for the majority of species, this "intelligence" is expressed through genetic mutation and success (interlifetime) instead of conceptual mutation and success (intralifetime). Complicating this, is the amount of knowledge passed between generations, the stability of the environment, as well as existing breeding preferences. We should certainly question just how much choice we have in our thoughts. Biological drives are still the motivating force, and contemplation is the simulated environment through which viability for success is tested. The quality of the results are determined by: the depth and diversity of sensory exposure the development of ideas the capacity for memory and incorporation and ignorance (willful or otherwise). The force of the biological drive(s), the perceived availability of resources, and forces in the environment determine the speed and focus of the investigation as well as the speed and focus of action. It seems that the "awareness of contemplation" actually provides the framework for the concept of divinity; this "world in the man" in which he has omnipotent power and omniscience (to the extent of his understanding). Snap to reality, to the "man in the world", and the parallel is easily drawn. Edited June 24, 2017 by OfficerJones clarification, bullet points 1 1
OfficerJones Posted June 24, 2017 Author Posted June 24, 2017 On 4/29/2017 at 6:52 AM, os.motic said: These should be bullet pointed. Noted, thanks.
OfficerJones Posted June 25, 2017 Author Posted June 25, 2017 On 4/3/2017 at 11:42 AM, Wuzzums said: ...but "intelligence" already has a definition. I agree with your assertion, though it's no refutation. "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills." Inherent intelligence, based upon genetic success or failure, is still intelligence. Sensory data is knowledge, as much any residue of its successful and unsuccessful processing. The day a snake is born, it is able to detect potential food (acquire sensory data), decide whether it wants to try to eat it (apply knowledge), and strike (apply skills). It may also learn from the experience (acquire knowledge)
Wuzzums Posted June 25, 2017 Posted June 25, 2017 6 hours ago, OfficerJones said: I agree with your assertion, though it's no refutation. "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills." Inherent intelligence, based upon genetic success or failure, is still intelligence. Sensory data is knowledge, as much any residue of its successful and unsuccessful processing. The day a snake is born, it is able to detect potential food (acquire sensory data), decide whether it wants to try to eat it (apply knowledge), and strike (apply skills). It may also learn from the experience (acquire knowledge) "On Intelligence" by Jeff Hawkins is one of my favorite books. It's a book on AI that's so simple, clear, and elegant that most pundits who like to talk about (the dangers of) AI will never read. Relevant here is how he defines "intelligence" as the "ability to accurately predict the future". Any living creature that can predict the future can be described as intelligent. A lion can accurately predict a zebra's run pattern thus a lion is intelligent. A flower will grow straight up and get cut down over and over again forever thus a flower is not intelligent. Therefore life does not require intelligence. The reverse is true also. Intelligence does not require life. A firewall on a computer is a very basic form of non-living intelligence. It can accurately predict your security preferences but it doesn't have any of the proprieties a living organism has. When people say "intelligent life" they're usually talking about a non-conscious being performing similar actions to that of a conscious being. Nobody really knows what consciousness is. It's sort of like the term "pornography". We can't really define it but we can accurately identify it when we see it. Is it linked to intelligence? Well not exactly, gorillas and aborigines have a very similar IQ, we're not gonna give gorillas human rights any time soon nor will we see gorillas engaging in building huts or using language any time soon. Is it linked to life? So far we know life is necessary but no sufficient for consciousness because no plant is conscious. So what is it? The best description I have found for consciousness is also from that book. Consciousness is like a conductor in an orchestra. An orchestra with a conductor is almost identical with an orchestra without a conductor. When we see an orchestra performing beautiful music (problem-solving) but we see no conductor we're of course amazed. It raises the questions why a conductor is needed in the first place, where did the conductor come from, and what would happen to us if we removed the conductor altogether. This is why I believe human are so fascinated with "intelligent life". Nobody is impressed with an aboriginal driving a car or using a credit card, but we'll lose our minds to see an ape doing those exact same things.
mgggb Posted July 30, 2017 Posted July 30, 2017 On 4/2/2017 at 4:00 PM, OfficerJones said: Every time I hear the phrase "intelligent life", or see a documentary about the miraculous problem-solving abilities of a non-human animal, I'm reminded how self-centered the human species is, and rightfully so. A certain amount of self-importance and self-deception is required for an organism to assert itself on its environment and achieve its full potential. I'd like to assert that intelligence is common to all of life. Its just that for the majority of species, this "intelligence" is expressed through genetic mutation and success (interlifetime) instead of conceptual mutation and success (intralifetime). Complicating this, is the amount of knowledge passed between generations, the stability of the environment, as well as existing breeding preferences. We should certainly question just how much choice we have in our thoughts. Biological drives are still the motivating force, and contemplation is the simulated environment through which viability for success is tested. The quality of the results are determined by: the depth and diversity of sensory exposure the development of ideas the capacity for memory and incorporation and ignorance (willful or otherwise). The force of the biological drive(s), the perceived availability of resources, and forces in the environment determine the speed and focus of the investigation as well as the speed and focus of action. It seems that the "awareness of contemplation" actually provides the framework for the concept of divinity; this "world in the man" in which he has omnipotent power and omniscience (to the extent of his understanding). Snap to reality, to the "man in the world", and the parallel is easily drawn. I don't understand the point of your post. I don't think anyone has ever claimed that lesser animals are unintelligent, but intelligence is relative. The question is always compared to what? If compared to humans, all other animals are beyond retarded. If compared to the demands of their environment then all surviving species are by definition intelligent.
Recommended Posts