Is natural selection driven by intelligence?

[PIT2]

Why not just pick another word?

I really can't think of a single word to replace it with. I would end up with a description that sounds more complicated than the word "intelligence".

I don't think there are good words to describe even simple living systems in terms that make them sound dead and non-intelligent. I came across this quote from a biosemiotic paper which also mentioned it:

It seems as if modern biochemistry cannot be taught - or even thought - without using communicational terms such as 'recognition', 'high-fidelity', 'messenger-RNA', 'signalling', 'presenting' or even 'chaperones'. Such terms pop up from every page of modern textbooks in biochemistry in spite of the fact, that they clearly have nothing to do with the physicalist universe to which such books are dedicated.
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Hoffmeyer_97.html

Perhaps "abstract form of intelligence" is a less controversial term.

 

[quantumcarl]

Why not just pick another word? Everyone's getting hung up on 'intelligence,' and the definition still hasn't been agreed upon for this thread. Seems pointless to debate whether something is intelligent if people are using the words differently from one another.

So substitute something else for 'intelligence.'

Self perpetuating.

Elegant.

Efficient.

I think any of those terms would be less controversial and would still allow you to argue your position. Otherwise, it seems you are simply trying to get people to change their definition of intelligence.

It's not like you're disagreeing on mechanism, after all.

Good idea, Pattylou. I'll go with efficient and or efficiency.

Intelligence is defined by the ability to comprehend one's condition and the condition of one's surroundings.

Comprehension is defined as:

• an ability to understand the meaning or importance of something (or the knowledge acquired as a result); "how you can do that is beyond my comprehension"; "he was famous for his comprehension of American literature"

• inclusion: the relation of comprising something; "he admired the inclusion of so many ideas in such a short work"

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Intelligence is manifest only by the complex system of a neural network. This neural network must have a diversity of neuronal structures to comprehend and to communicate that ability to compehend in order to be confirmed as an entity that possesses intelligence. (ie: by way of an IQ test)

Why should we assume that the seemingly intelligent behaviour of microbes is illusory (a projection of our own understanding)?

Why would we assume that the apparently intelligent behaviour of microbes is not illusory?

Rather than assume anything... we must put our friends the microbes through an IQ test to settle this question. Assumption is not an efficient tool of biology nor of any science.

As for this quote:

It seems as if modern biochemistry cannot be taught - or even thought - without using communicational terms such as 'recognition', 'high-fidelity', 'messenger-RNA', 'signalling', 'presenting' or even 'chaperones'. Such terms pop up from every page of modern textbooks in biochemistry in spite of the fact, that they clearly have nothing to do with the physicalist universe to which such books are dedicated.

What gets me is the author,, if you can call them that, including Pit2, suggest that there is a difference between living matter and non-living matter.

This is untrue.

All matter is matter... living or not. Matter reacts in the presence of other matter and elements in a diverse and sometimes predictable way.

• The sun's gravity "attracts" planets.

• Specific RNA strands are configured in such a way that they picks up specific proteins.

These are developments that have come into play over billions of years... of trial and error. When we use terminology such as "attraction" or "signalling", and so on etc... its because we are human. We are using language which has developed in response to our environment. Its not because living or non-living matter has emotions, intelligence or comprehends its situation as matter. We simply apply our "understanding" of "attraction", marrage, intelligence etc.. to the processes which govern matter, living and not living.

Why do we have intelligence when no other compilation of matter does? Simple. Its one of our more dominant methods of survival. Its our part of the diversity of nature.

How does a tomato survive? It has some naturally selected pesticidal toxins it secretes from its stalk and leaves.

How do humans survive? They have a naturally selected trait known as "intelligence" which helps them survive the elements... etc. This intelligence developed over millions of years due to trial and error and developments in neuonal growth, connectivity and comprehension skills.

 

[PIT2]

Intelligence is defined by the ability to comprehend one's condition and the condition of one's surroundings.

Comprehension is defined as:

• an ability to understand the meaning or importance of something (or the knowledge acquired as a result); "how you can do that is beyond my comprehension"; "he was famous for his comprehension of American literature"

• inclusion: the relation of comprising something; "he admired the inclusion of so many ideas in such a short work"

If that is the definition we are going to use, then yes, bacteria are intelligent. My point is, when one boils intelligence, comprehension, understanding, etc. down to their abstract forms, then it can indeed be argued that all life is intelligent.

Perhaps all that is required is some subjectivity to turn them into subjects.

Rather than assume anything... we must put our friends the microbes through an IQ test to settle this question. Assumption is not an efficient tool of biology nor of any science.

What happens to an alien on a planet without IQ tests? (or a human on Mars for that matter)
Is it unintelligent because the test isn't available there?

What gets me is the author,, if you can call them that, including Pit2, suggest that there is a difference between living matter and non-living matter.

This is untrue.

All matter is matter... living or not. Matter reacts in the presence of other matter and elements in a diverse and sometimes predictable way.

It is not me who is claiming that only humans or beings with brains capable of doing an IQ test are intelligent. I don't think there is any magical substance to intelligence, which u seem to think and name "neurons". Neurons themselves are produced by evolution and have bacterial ancestors.

Its not because living or non-living matter has emotions, intelligence or comprehends its situation as matter. We simply apply our "understanding" of "attraction", marrage, intelligence etc.. to the processes which govern matter, living and not living.

Excuse me, since when do humans (which consist of living matter) not have emotions or intelligence?

 

[Rade]

But what does "understanding" mean in biological terms? Neurons?

Yes, this is what it means--neurons must be present, thus a bacteria by definition does not "understand", thus does not have intellect.

But what exactly does a neuron do that makes it the physical equivalent of understanding?

Great question, a topic of scientific study, mechanism is unknown to me.

Does "understanding" suddenly arise somewhere along evolutionary history, or would it have its predecessors in a simpler form?

Well, no and yes. It did not have to be sudden, but may have been--thus you can have 1% understanding or 99.9 % or anything between. And yes, understanding most clearly is predicted to be present in more primitive forms than mammals, but, not the very most primitive forms of life such as bacteria. Do we say that the fig tree understands--of course not.

If so, then the simplest form of understanding may well be present in the first and simplest form of life.

Well, again, no, this is a false premise. The "first" forms of life did not have neurons, thus 0.0 % understanding at this time in evolutionary history.

 

[PIT2]

Yes, this is what it means--neurons must be present, thus a bacteria by definition does not "understand", thus does not have intellect.

...The "first" forms of life did not have neurons, thus 0.0 % understanding at this time in evolutionary history.

I think we shouldn't define intelligence by being a certain physical system such as a neuron, but rather by what intelligence does. Only then it could be checked which physical systems behave like that. The same goes for "understanding".

Here is a site about cell intelligence (or at least mammalian cell intelligence):

The results suggest that mammalian cells, indeed, posess intelligence. The experimental basis for this conclusion is presented in the following web pages.
The most significant experimental results are:

• 1. The motile machinery of cells contains subdomains ('microplasts') that can be isolated from the cell and then are capable of autonomous movements. Yet, inside the cell they do not exercise their ability. The situation is comparable to a person's muscles that are capable of contraction outside a person's body, but do not contract at will once they are part of the person, suggesting that they are subject to a control center.
• 2. The cell as a whole is capable of immensely complex migration patterns for which their genome cannot contain a detailed program as they are responses to unforseeable encounters ( Cell movement is not random.. ).
• 3. Cells can 'see', i.e. they can map the directions of near-infrared light sources in their environment and direct their movements toward them. No such 'vision' is possible without a very sophisticated signal processing system ('cell brain') that is linked to the movement control of the cell. (The larger their light scattering, the larger the distance from which aggregating cells came together. )

In addition there is the supporting theoretical consideration that the hiterto completely unexplained complex structure of centrioles is predicted in every detail if one asks what structure a cellular 'eye' would have. ( The best design for a cellular eye is a pair of centrioles )

http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehler/cellint0.htm

 

[quantumcarl]

My point is, when one boils intelligence, comprehension, understanding, etc. down to their abstract forms, then it can indeed be argued that all life is intelligent.

No it can't. This is not an abstract concept. As I've pointed out there are diverse methods of survival. Humans use what they term the "intellect" to survive. It has developed since the advent of complex neuron networks in simple and complex organisms.

You may argue that the Hydra is a complex network of uni-celled organisms but its function is not to comprehend or use intelligence.

The natural selection process that allowed the Hydra's structure to continue as a species was not because its comprehension abilities supported its survival. The function of the cell network in the Hydra is to have as many tendrils as possible harvesting the microorganisms that randomly pass by.

This allowed for the structure to survive in the interesting shape we see today. It did not arrive at its "seemingly intelligent" design because it comprehended the structure to be esthetic, efficient or acting to support its survival. It survived, better than other forms of the same species, because of the effiency of the structure that was arrived at by natural trail and error... and/or selection.

Perhaps all that is required is some subjectivity to turn them into subjects.

Oh? Turn them into subjects . Does that make us the kings of subjectivity?

What happens to an alien on a planet without IQ tests? (or a human on Mars for that matter)
Is it unintelligent because the test isn't available there?

Why don't you ask the alien on the planet you've used your intelligence to imagine .

I don't think there is any magical substance to intelligence,

I don't think intelligence is any more "magic" than the development of the Jumping Choy Cactus or Stinging Nettles.

Neurons themselves are produced by evolution and have bacterial ancestors.

That's right. Over billions of years bacteria has developed countless survival techniques (by trial and error). One of their latest evolutionary developments was to become a part of a larger system... creating organisms. Beyond that evolution, over another half billion years or more, developed neural networks out of the collections of single cells... this led to what is known as the Ganglia in simple organisms.

A primary function of the Ganglia was to help the organism survive by using its reactions to alert the rest of the cells in the organism to photo-stimulus or tactile stimulus. This was the advent of the neuronal network. Later on, we see humans using a highly developed neuron network to make intelligent decisions like not to engage this thread anymore.

Excuse me, since when do humans (which consist of living matter) not have emotions or intelligence?

Like I said. there's not difference between living and non-living matter.

You may want to do some studying on these topics:

Biology

Evolution

Natural Selection

Survival of the Species

Matter (specifically what it is)

Intelligence and

Natural Order

Laws of Nature

 

[PIT2]

You may argue that the Hydra is a complex network of uni-celled organisms but its function is not to comprehend or use intelligence.

What is comprehension in biological terms?

Perhaps it is something like: an organism senses the environment, compares it with his own body, knows that he needs a certain part of it to survive, then uses it for its survival.

Like I said. there's not difference between living and non-living matter.

Well, we do know that we are conscious beings.
Would u say that non-living matter is conscious aswell?

This allowed for the structure to survive in the interesting shape we see today. It did not arrive at its "seemingly intelligent" design because it comprehended the structure to be esthetic, efficient or acting to support its survival. It survived, better than other forms of the same species, because of the effiency of the structure that was arrived at by natural trail and error... and/or selection.

Efficiency is not what drives natural selection. A computer program may handle files efficiently, yet it does not evolve. All lifeforms have some kind of organisational principle that enables them to survive, reproduce, adapt, grow, evolve. This principle is what i think amounts to intelligence. I understand that u disagree, and i agree to disagree with u

 

[quantumcarl]

Efficiency is not what drives natural selection.

This kind of statement is what alerts me to your lack of knowledge and understanding with regard to the process of natural selection, evolution and natural,physical laws.

Efficency is the only thing that drives natural selection.

If a system is not efficent then it does not survive to reproduce its species.
If a system is efficent then it does survive to reproduce its kind.
This is, very basically, the process of natural selection.

You seem interested in the whole process so I heartily recommend you study biology and some of the other subjects I mentioned earlier.

 

[PIT2]

Efficency is the only thing that drives natural selection.

If a system is not efficent then it does not survive to reproduce its species.

If a system is efficent then it does survive to reproduce its kind.
This is, very basically, the process of natural selection.

Like i said earlier, a computer program (or even a car) may be efficient, yet it does not survive, reproduce, grow, adapt or evolve. Thus efficiency as the drive of NS has been falsified. Unless it is the efficiency of the intelligence

Also, please look into some of the scientific sources i have quoted in this thread and respond to their claims that cells are intelligent, instead of dismissing them by calling me dumb (which makes absolutely no sense now does it?).

 

[Rade]

I think we shouldn't define intelligence by being a certain physical system such as a neuron, but rather by what intelligence does. Only then it could be checked which physical systems behave like that. The same goes for "understanding". Here is a site about cell intelligence (or at least mammalian cell intelligence):

I agree that definitions for concepts are critical. OK, let us take your approach, what is it that "an intelligent entity does" ? It has the ability to "understand"--this is what we find in Webster. Now, what does it mean to say that an entity "understands" ? It has the ability to "to perceive or discern the meaning of". Now, let us investigate "cell intelligence" from your post. The site mentions "microplasts" being under control as an example of "intelligence"--but this is clearly false since the microplast does not show evidence (either inside the cell nor outside) of knowing the meaning of why it behaves differently inside and outside the cell. The only example of "intelligence" in this example is from the human researchers that conducted research on the microplasts. Likewise, complex migration patterns in cell structures are not examples of intelligence. Nor is the ability to move toward wavelengths of light energy. So, as you can see, when we use your criterion of defining "intelligence" and "understanding" by what an entity "does" (e.g., ability to perceive or discern the meaning of") then it is clear that the only "cells" where this action is known to be present is within "neurons". Thus my argument, "intelligence" is isolated to a single group of entities in the universe--neurons. If my argument holds, then the answer to your OP must be no--that is the point I have been trying to get across here.

 

[PIT2]

Now, let us investigate "cell intelligence" from your post. The site mentions "microplasts" being under control as an example of "intelligence"--but this is clearly false since the microplast does not show evidence (either inside the cell nor outside) of knowing the meaning of why it behaves differently inside and outside the cell.

They compared the microplasts to human muscles inside and outside the body. The knowledge of meaning would not be in the muscles under control, but in the control-center controlling them. It is hard(impossible) to tell whether something so small as a cell 'knows' something, but if it has sense organs and experiences things, then this experiencing could be equal to 'knowing'. Similarly when u see the color red, u know it is red through experiencing it (there is no other way to come to know the color red).

Likewise, complex migration patterns in cell structures are not examples of intelligence. Nor is the ability to move toward wavelengths of light energy.

Why not? The cell responds to the environment and tackles challenges posed by it. The ability to survive seems an inherent form of intelligence, since it requires knowledge about the environment and an understanding of what meaning aspects of it (for example IR light) have for survival.

So, as you can see, when we use your criterion of defining "intelligence" and "understanding" by what an entity "does" (e.g., ability to perceive or discern the meaning of") then it is clear that the only "cells" where this action is known to be present is within "neurons".

What do neurons do that other cells don't do and that makes them intelligent? This is what i want to know.

The only thing that seems to make them intelligent in above view, is that we know that neurons make up our brains and that we know we are intelligent, thus our intelligence must be somewhere in the brains neurons. However I am sure that if researchers looked at neurons under a microscope they would describe them in exactly the same reductionistic language as they describe single cells.

Thus my argument, "intelligence" is isolated to a single group of entities in the universe--neurons. If my argument holds, then the answer to your OP must be no--that is the point I have been trying to get across here.

I understand. My point is that intelligence is determined by looking at the behaviour of an organism, and even though we can observe that behaviour complexity can vary enormously, there is no 'start' or 'end' of intelligent behaviour along the evolutionairy timeline.

I accept that u disagree and also admit that u may be completely right, but currently I am not convinced

 

[Rade]

...what do neurons do that other cells don't do and that makes them intelligent? This is what i want to know...

To answer this question, I need to know how you define "intelligence". The entire discussion on this thread has evolved to folks talking past each other because they use different definitions of the word intelligence. So, sorry if you have given your exact definition before, but if you could repeat it here, then I can respond to your very valid question--e.g., what do neurons do that other groups of cells cannot do, that makes neurons intelligent.

 

[PIT2]

To answer this question, I need to know how you define "intelligence". The entire discussion on this thread has evolved to folks talking past each other because they use different definitions of the word intelligence. So, sorry if you have given your exact definition before, but if you could repeat it here, then I can respond to your very valid question--e.g., what do neurons do that other groups of cells cannot do, that makes neurons intelligent.

I opened a topic about this in the metaphysics section, but i haven't myself tried to define it yet.

Right now i came up with this:

"to understand the meaning of something and act upon this knowledge"

When i looked up the definition on google, the one that best matched my (intended) definition was this:

• to understand and profit from experience

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=intelligence (top one)

So i think that last one is good. There are other definitions in the topic with which i agree also:

• All acts of intelligence are characterized by an understanding of the relations between the given elements of a situation and an invention of what needs to be done using these elements in order to solve the problem and achieve the goal.
  
  
• Intelligence is the capacity to use given information in a relevant way to a particular situation.

defining intelligence

 

[Rade]

Thank you PIT2. I see the use of the word "understand" in most (not all) of the definitions of intelligence you give. And, here then, I hold is the answer to your question about what neurons do that other cells do not do. Of all the different types of cells that exist in living things, the only ones that show evidence of "understanding" (thus intelligence) are groups of neurons, and this is why bacteria cells are not intelligent, nor groups of blood cells, muscle cells, etc, even though they "do things" (and can profit from doing things)--the one thing they do not do is "understand" what they do. Now, I agree with you that it is not clear at all exactly when during evolutionary process the first groups of neurons came to a state of "understanding"--but clearly this state was not present for many 100's millions years when first forms of living things were evolving. So we see that the answer to your OP is no, natural selection is not driven by understanding (intelligence)--natural selection is driven by the non-random reproduction of genotypes, and whether or not an event is random or not does not "require" intelligence--it may be present, it may not.

 

[PIT2]

I disagree. The definition of "understand":

• know and comprehend the nature or meaning of

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=understand

What the cell experiences would also be what it knows. If it senses IR light, then it knows what it is like to feel IR light. (as i said above, there is no other way to come to know the color red than to experience it directly) Apparently the cell also knows what the meaning of the IR light is, because it 'decides' to move towards it, which results in energy for, and the survival of, the cell.

So again, "understand" may seem like a big word, but in its simplest form it may already present in the first lifeforms.

 

[selfAdjoint]

So again, "understand" may seem like a big word, but in its simplest form it may already present in the first lifeforms.

I repeat that if the simplest lifeforms "understand" in any meaningful sense then so does a thermostat. That applies to single neurons too.

 

[PIT2]

I repeat that if the simplest lifeforms "understand" in any meaningful sense then so does a thermostat. That applies to single neurons too.

Would u also say that "if humans understand, then so do thermostats"?

 

[Rade]

...What the cell experiences would also be what it knows.

False. Again to definitions--a cell does not "know"--see this link on definition of knowledge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge
Second, there is no "meaning" to photons of light energy, they just exist--if they have any meaning perhaps we say that the purpose of photons is to continue to exist. Third, a bacteria cell does not "decide" to move or not to move toward light. To decide infers that a choice exists, and bacteria cannot make choice not to move toward light provided--they respond by reflex, not choice. However, each day, groups of neurons in your brain make choices. So, again you have provided nice example that falsifies the question of your OP--only cells that make choices show intelligence, groups of neurons make choices, groups of bacteria cell do not--bacteria are not intelligent. I appreciate the opportunity to dialog with you, but I decide to move on to other threads now. Best of luck searching for intelligence in bacteria cells.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Would u also say that "if humans understand, then so do thermostats"?

No I definitely would not. But it seems that you would!

 

[PIT2]

False. Again to definitions--a cell does not "know"--see this link on definition of knowledge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge

If a cell senses something, then it knows something (it knows what it is like to sense what it senses).

Second, there is no "meaning" to photons of light energy, they just exist--if they have any meaning perhaps we say that the purpose of photons is to continue to exist.

The photons that come from the television and enter our eyes obviously have a "meaning" in the mind of the spectator. Thus photons, molecules, and anything else can have meaning when they are observed/sensed by living beings.

Third, a bacteria cell does not "decide" to move or not to move toward light. To decide infers that a choice exists, and bacteria cannot make choice not to move toward light provided--they respond by reflex, not choice.

The complex behaviour of bacteria in all kinds of environments actually does suggest that they do make decisions. Take this example:

Looking at the same cell in phase contrast microscopy advance along the track as shown in the sequence below, shows that the cell was by no means confined to the glass-'road' it followed. Many times it extended its body well into the gold surface. Eventually, it walked out at a point where the 'road' was no different than anyplace else. In short, the cells was certainly not forced into the guiding line. Following it,therefore, meant that it detected and followed clues, not forces.
http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehler/guidance.htm

However, each day, groups of neurons in your brain make choices. So, again you have provided nice example that falsifies the question of your OP--only cells that make choices show intelligence, groups of neurons make choices, groups of bacteria cell do not--bacteria are not intelligent. I appreciate the opportunity to dialog with you, but I decide to move on to other threads now. Best of luck searching for intelligence in bacteria cells.

Im sorry, but u still haven't provided any arguments other than:
"neurons make choices, cells dont, and this serves as an example that falsifies the OP"

 

[selfAdjoint]

PIT2, where someone else says "The switch was turned on" or "The switch was turned off", you persist in using loaded language like "The switch senses that it was turned on" or "The switch understands that it was turned off". The rest of us can't make any sense out of that.

 

[PIT2]

PIT2, where someone else says "The switch was turned on" or "The switch was turned off", you persist in using loaded language like "The switch senses that it was turned on" or "The switch understands that it was turned off". The rest of us can't make any sense out of that.

We are not talking about switches, but about living organisms. Comparing living organisms with switches and thermostats is just as "loaded" as considering that they are conscious.

As for "understanding", i don't know what rade or u are talking about when speaking of this. All I've read here is that there seems to exist the idea that "understanding = multiple neurons" and "intelligence = multiple neurons". However the definitions I've shown do not speak in terms of neurons.

 

[SizarieldoR]

I believe that the statement is false,

first of all because not always do the most intelligent induviduals survive, and

second, because even if an intelligent individual survives in spite of a less intelligent one, the intelligence will probably not be transmitted to the heirs of the "clever boy/girl" (ALTHOUGH the question of hereditary intelligence is dusputed, I personally take the Freudistic point of view)

 

[selfAdjoint]

We are not talking about switches, but about living organisms. Comparing living organisms with switches and thermostats is just as "loaded" as considering that they are conscious.

As for "understanding", i don't know what rade or u are talking about when speaking of this. All I've read here is that there seems to exist the idea that "understanding = multiple neurons" and "intelligence = multiple neurons". However the definitions I've shown do not speak in terms of neurons.

The simplest organisms have reactions that are entirely comparable to switches. So do many studied functions in our brains. Are you positing some miraculous "life force" that distinguishes a switch mechanism found in a living organism from a similar one made of hardware?

 

[quantumcarl]

I think what the confusion here is is that "intelligence" really is only a complex series of switches and so one could depict intelligence as existing in all forms of matter in that all forms of matter respond to stimulus or "cause".

However "intelligence" is a concept concieved by humans to describe the complex interactions of neurons in the highly developed brain of the animal "homo sapien sapien". It also describes similar functions in other mammals such as the ape family and the dolphin and whale. Even birds show some intelligence in their use of tools to obtain food (ie: using a stick to coax grubs out of a tree).

The reason we make such a distinction between the less complex "switches' in bacterial molecular make-up and the the more comlex interacting switches of the afore mentioned mammals is because we like to distinquish between levels of complexity for our own purposes. Thus, we classify some sets of molecules as intelligent and some as not intelligent.

In the end we must admit that all living and non-living things are comprised, at one level, of the basic unit of "molecules" that act and react in various ways to various causes. What we say about these structures has no bearing upon what they actually are or are doing. This reminds us of Dr. Bohr's statement where science only represents what we can say about nature... not what nature actually is. To condense what Dr. Bohr is saying one would only need to say "get over yourselves".

 

[selfAdjoint]

I think what the confusion here is is that "intelligence" really is only a complex series of switches and so one could depict intelligence as existing in all forms of matter in that all forms of matter respond to stimulus or "cause".

However "intelligence" is a concept concieved by humans to describe the complex interactions of neurons in the highly developed brain of the animal "homo sapien sapien". It also describes similar functions in other mammals such as the ape family and the dolphin and whale. Even birds show some intelligence in their use of tools to obtain food (ie: using a stick to coax grubs out of a tree).

The reason we make such a distinction between the less complex "switches' in bacterial molecular make-up and the the more comlex interacting switches of the afore mentioned mammals is because we like to distinquish between levels of complexity for our own purposes. Thus, we classify some sets of molecules as intelligent and some as not intelligent.

In the end we must admit that all living and non-living things are comprised, at one level, of the basic unit of "molecules" that act and react in various ways to various causes. What we say about these structures has no bearing upon what they actually are or are doing. This reminds us of Dr. Bohr's statement where science only represents what we can say about nature... not what nature actually is. To condense what Dr. Bohr is saying one would only need to say "get over yourselves".

I completely agree with this. Intelligence is only a name we agree to give to certain behavior. Likewise species is only a grouping we have for our own contingent purposes. It doesn't exactly correspond to any objective description (did I hear somebody say "interbreed"? Consider North American canids, or those species of birds that circle the pole.)

 

[quantumcarl]

I completely agree with this. Intelligence is only a name we agree to give to certain behavior.

Yes, such as the behaviour observed in a brain when it is stimulated by specific stimuli and responds with specific responses.

Likewise species is only a grouping we have for our own contingent purposes. It doesn't exactly correspond to any objective description (did I hear somebody say "interbreed"?

or "hybrid" (such as the electric/methane dung beetle) ?

Consider North American canids, or those species of birds that circle the pole.)

Are they performing a May Pole Celebration or simply following a leader whose progenitors have passed on a genetic predisposition to fly in circles at a specific location?

Don't mind me, I gave up maintaining any delusion of intelligence to make room for what might actually be going on in the world. Its kind of cool to speculate that we don't know a bl**dy thing about this universe because that's when you're open to learning something about it. As soon as you fill your head with ideas about how things "really work"... there's no room for the truth.

Hasta Luego me amigas y amigos!

 

[PIT2]

The simplest organisms have reactions that are entirely comparable to switches. So do many studied functions in our brains.

So why say that the 'switches' in our brains are intelligent, and the 'switches' in simpler organisms are not?

Are you positing some miraculous "life force" that distinguishes a switch mechanism found in a living organism from a similar one made of hardware?

On the contrary, i am taking away the life force attributed to neurons.

In the end we must admit that all living and non-living things are comprised, at one level, of the basic unit of "molecules" that act and react in various ways to various causes. What we say about these structures has no bearing upon what they actually are or are doing.

And this goes both ways of course, whether one wishes to call something intelligent, or switchy.

 

[selfAdjoint]

So why say that the 'switches' in our brains are intelligent, and the 'switches' in simpler organisms are not?

I don't say that. I say intelligence is an emergent property of the complex interaction of the zillions of switches in our brains. Very much simpler organisms don't have enough switches for that to happen. And the very simplest ones, bacteria, have switch sets comparable to manufactured devices.

 

[PIT2]

And the very simplest ones, bacteria, have switch sets comparable to manufactured devices.

I think even the simplest organisms are well ahead of any manmade devices or AI.

This paper below takes it all even a step further, by claiming that the bacterial intelligence selects/designs its genome. But this is not what I am claiming here in this topic.

Abstract
This paper is devoted to presenting an alternative approach to the Darwinian one. The basic assumption is that the creativity observed in nature is not an illusion but part of an objective reality. In the new picture evolutionary progress is not a result of successful accumulation of mistakes, but is rather the outcome of designed creative processes in the genome.

8. The genome as an adaptive cybernetic unit with self-awareness
We have referred to the genome as an adaptive cybernetic unit [22,33] in order to emphasize that, in our view, it is beyond a universal Turing machine [71]. As I mentioned in the introduction, metaphorically speaking, the genome includes a user with a computational unit and a hardware engineer with a team of technicians for continuous design and implementation of changes in the hardware. Such a complex is beyond a universal Turing machine. In the latter, the structure is static and is decoupled from the input=output and the computation process. The genome is a dynamic entity. If its structure changes adaptively it does so according to the performed computations. It implies that the genome is capable of self-reference, has self-information and, most crucially, has self-awareness. The user represents the ability of the genome to recognize that it faces a diffculty (imposed by the environmental conditions), formulate the problem associated with the diffculty and initiate a search for its solution. As discussed in Section 7, the genome employs its past experience in the process. The user also represents the ability of the genome to interpret and assign meaning to the outcome of its computations and compare it with its interpretation of the environmental conditions.

12. Possible implication of the new picture(Darwinian evolution vs. Cooperative evolution)
If there is indeed genetic communication in eukaryotes, then the state of the eukaryote can directly affect genetic changes in its individual cells, in the same manner that the state of the colony affects genetic changes in the individual bacterium. I would like to emphasize that indeed macro to micro singular feedback should exist for effcient control. In this regard, I believe that there are cells specialized in producing cybernators. The latter affect germ cells, thus, providing a plausible mechanism for designed changes in eukaryotes, changes brought about by the creative acts of genomic webs established within the organism.

http://star.tau.ac.il/~eshel/papers/bacterial wisdom.pdf
from: http://star.tau.ac.il/~eshel/bacterial_linguistic.html

Its from 1998 so i don't know how the experiments he mentions have turned out afterwards.