I'm bored. Can anyone provide a postive definition of intelligence and life, which we can actually agree on as a basis for debate? By this, I mean that it has to follow a number of properties: 1. It cannot be defined negatively. We can't define it as saying it's not x, y, z... Because there is an infinity of negatives so they cannot all be accounted for. 2. It cannot be defined by examples. Humans all share certain properties. For example, they all contain approximately the same percentage of carbon. Or whatever. In fact, there is an infinity of properties animals, or humans share, that is utterly irrelevant to any debate. 3. It cannot be defined intuitively. Because, put simply, everybody's intuition is different. And this includes using intuitive concepts like complex, organised, thought, consciousness and so on, unless they are themselves defined in the same way. 4. It must be reasonable, from these definitions, to apply them to obtain standard results. In short, while we are not defining things in terms of this, we can see that other humans are intelligent, rocks are not - and not merely find that other humans may or may not be intelligent, and that rock may or may not be intelligent. I'm assuming here, immensely unreasonably, as, yes, a leap of faith, that the above is impossible. It may not even have to be one we agree on. Such a definition does not exist. My point is that our conclusions as to whether intelligence can arise from 'matter', or whether abiogenesis is a reality, or whether consciousness is a non-reductible property are not real comments on the nature of the universe, but simply artefacts of the particular definition-set/world view we are using.