[kitkat]

People cannot agree on how to define "intelligence" and this is a problem with accepting it to explain biological processes. Why can't we simply explain it as an emergent property of memory capable cells that can alter their properties that enable them to counteract the actions of circumstances where they previously were restricted to be enslaved to the changing bioactivity of its environment. It is through experience and trying different alternatives that we can find the best solution to overcome a repetative problem so why isn't this view shared at the molecular level that as a whole perform the same methods of problem solving just like we do at our level?

[questionposter]

kitkat, on 3 November 2011 - 03:40 PM, said:

People cannot agree on how to define "intelligence" and this is a problem with accepting it to explain biological processes. Why can't we simply explain it as an emergent property of memory capable cells that can alter their properties that enable them to counteract the actions of circumstances where they previously were restricted to be enslaved to the changing bioactivity of its environment. It is through experience and trying different alternatives that we can find the best solution to overcome a repetative problem so why isn't this view shared at the molecular level that as a whole perform the same methods of problem solving just like we do at our level?

We can't come up with a concrete definition because because its not a physical entity you can just quantify and observe. As far as we can tell, where intelligence comes from is complex beyond our knowledge.

[kitkat]

questionposter, on 3 November 2011 - 10:38 PM, said:

We can't come up with a concrete definition because because its not a physical entity you can just quantify and observe. As far as we can tell, where intelligence comes from is complex beyond our knowledge.

Thank you, that is the first honest answer I have heard in a long time on a science forum.

[Ringer]

kitkat, on 3 November 2011 - 03:40 PM, said:

People cannot agree on how to define "intelligence" and this is a problem with accepting it to explain biological processes. Why can't we simply explain it as an emergent property of memory capable cells that can alter their properties that enable them to counteract the actions of circumstances where they previously were restricted to be enslaved to the changing bioactivity of its environment. It is through experience and trying different alternatives that we can find the best solution to overcome a repetative problem so why isn't this view shared at the molecular level that as a whole perform the same methods of problem solving just like we do at our level?

Scientific definitions have to be very specific. We can't explain it as you are suggesting because your definition really doesn't explain anything. What is a memory capable cell? Any cell can alter itself to counteract circumstances. That's part of the definition of being alive, reacting to external stimuli. I'm unsure of what you are talking about in your last sentence so I can't really comment.

I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but intelligence can't be defined in a strict scientific manner because no one can seem to agree what intelligence is. This may seem obvious, but that's really what it takes.

[Psycho]

Ringer, on 6 November 2011 - 06:48 AM, said:

I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but intelligence can't be defined in a strict scientific manner because no one can seem to agree what intelligence is. This may seem obvious, but that's really what it takes.

Indeed, intelligence is a philosophical notion hence most pure scientist don't try and define what it is, at best in the future they will define what is required to show various types of it. The assertion that intelligence is one thing and trying to define it is like trying to describe colour as one thing and trying to define it, yes it is the perception of different wave lengths of light, but that doesn't explain its perceived characteristics or its nuances, what we perceive it to be doesn't exist, it is just a construct created by the brain.

This post has been edited by Psycho: 6 November 2011 - 02:46 PM

[iNow]

kitkat, on 6 November 2011 - 06:34 AM, said:

Thank you, that is the first honest answer I have heard in a long time on a science forum.

Unfortunately, his answer was inaccurate.

[kitkat]

Ringer, on 6 November 2011 - 06:48 AM, said:

Scientific definitions have to be very specific. We can't explain it as you are suggesting because your definition really doesn't explain anything. What is a memory capable cell? Any cell can alter itself to counteract circumstances. That's part of the definition of being alive, reacting to external stimuli. I'm unsure of what you are talking about in your last sentence so I can't really comment.

I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but intelligence can't be defined in a strict scientific manner because no one can seem to agree what intelligence is. This may seem obvious, but that's really what it takes.

It can't be agreed on due to people being so arrogant in how they want it defined. The subject of physics is based on a predictable reaction to a cause, the results cannot change unless other things are added to the experiment. Simplistic cause and effect - a no brainer, no intelligence required situation. I get that and it is a logical explanation based on the tests and the repetitive identical results every time you retest it.

The fact is no living entity lives in an environment where there is only one cause which produces one typical reaction. We have also many observations of pathogens and their hosts that evolve to defeat them or reduce their harm and to me that is taking control of cause and changing the outcome in your favor = intelligence

[Psycho]

kitkat, on 6 November 2011 - 04:48 PM, said:

The fact is no living entity lives in an environment where there is only one cause which produces one typical reaction. We have also many observations of pathogens and their hosts that evolve to defeat them or reduce their harm and to me that is taking control of cause and changing the outcome in your favor = intelligence

That is a terrible definition of intelligence, all most bacteria do is respond to their surroundings and have a built in response to them, they are defined by cause and effect, they aren't choosing to do anything, if they don't do it they die therefore their genes aren't in the system any more and the ones that still prosper are, that isn't intelligence, in most cases it is chance.

Your assertion is based on a complete and utter lack of understanding of the way bacteria and pathogens work and evolve, so I don't even know why you are proposing them in the definition of intelligence.

[Ringer]

kitkat, on 6 November 2011 - 04:48 PM, said:

The fact is no living entity lives in an environment where there is only one cause which produces one typical reaction. We have also many observations of pathogens and their hosts that evolve to defeat them or reduce their harm and to me that is taking control of cause and changing the outcome in your favor = intelligence

There is nothing about evolution that has to do with intelligence. The reason hosts evolve resistance to things because those that don't die. So that makes your definition null considering that intelligence isn't necessary for your example.

[kitkat]

Ringer, on 6 November 2011 - 06:34 PM, said:

There is nothing about evolution that has to do with intelligence. The reason hosts evolve resistance to things because those that don't die. So that makes your definition null considering that intelligence isn't necessary for your example.

Okay, you win, but if they don't have it we don't have it either!

[Ringer]

kitkat, on 7 November 2011 - 12:30 AM, said:

Okay, you win, but if they don't have it we don't have it either!

I didn't say anybody had anything. All I meant was that since there isn't really any sort of agreement on what intelligence is, we can't strictly define it. It's much like consciousness, we can talk a lot about consciousness and have interesting discussions, but when it gets down to the hard stuff we just can't agree on what can be considered consciousness. Not saying that it doesn't exist, just until professionals agree to what they intelligence is there won't be a good definitive definition.

[Psycho]

kitkat, on 7 November 2011 - 12:30 AM, said:

Okay, you win, but if they don't have it we don't have it either!

How about you just go back to basics and learn what evolution actually is before try to discuss it.

[kitkat]

Psycho, on 7 November 2011 - 09:13 AM, said:

How about you just go back to basics and learn what evolution actually is before try to discuss it.

I can certainly see why this forum has so few people interested in it, with an attitude like yours, I can see why people get turned off to learning science. When you expect people to use your terminology in a strict fashion that you can only understrand in the scientific mumbo jumbo language that is brainwashed in your field of expertise, nobody wants to play by your rules. That is why there are many scientific articles out there is written in a way that a regular person can relate to and understand its meaning. The problem arrives when a person comes to these forums and expects that the people responding to their questions or how they interpret the information that is on the internet is translated so we get it. Instead it is responded with sarcasm and insults and that we better go learn more on the subject before coming here.

[Appolinaria]

Psycho, on 7 November 2011 - 09:13 AM, said:

How about you just go back to basics and learn what evolution actually is before try to discuss it.

How about you just go back to elementary school and learn how to proofread?

[mooeypoo]

Psycho, on 7 November 2011 - 09:13 AM, said:

How about you just go back to basics and learn what evolution actually is before try to discuss it.

!

Moderator Note

There's absolutely NO reason being rude. Any point you want to make can be made in a civil manner.

If you don't have a constructive comment to add to a thread, don't add anything. This goes to everyone, please. Stay civil.

[Moontanman]

IMHO the problem with defining intelligence has to do with who is defining it. We define intelligence by our own measure but that measure is flawed because we can't really be the judge in a contest in which we are participants, conflict of interest... By our own standards we are intelligent and no other creature we know of can even define intelligence. If we could indeed communicate with other animals we might be surprised to learn their judgement on our intelligence. I wonder what a Sperm whale thinks... their brains are very complex and huge compared to ours, do they just naturally know things we cannot even conceive of? Or possibly they think we are not intelligent enough to know just how unintelligent we are... Intelligence, much like beauty, is in the eye or brain of the beholder....

[Brainteaserfan]

kitkat, on 10 November 2011 - 05:22 AM, said:

I can certainly see why this forum has so few people interested in it...

Hmm, why are you here?

[kitkat]

Brainteaserfan, on 11 November 2011 - 03:26 AM, said:

Hmm, why are you here?

Good question, I won't be back here anymore.

[jimmydasaint]

I though the whole point of a Science Forum was to encourage, educate and enthuse ALL ages and ALL educational levels to understand the world around us and to turn out well informed members of the public who can appreciate the advances and sheer amazing nature of scientific discovery and the scientific method....

Yet the sneering tones and responses to a good simple question, by some of the contributors above, dismay me. That is not why I come to this Forum. If you want to show sarcasm and arrogance instead of a genuine wish to answer questions by doing some research first, then I am afraid you are revealing your own insecurities.

This is OUR Forum, for the people who love their Science and are probably aged from 11 upwards. It is OUR right to ask simple questions because that is part of the mission statement of Science education. It is not the right of people to show arrogance to those of less knowledge.

This post has been edited by jimmydasaint: 24 November 2011 - 04:43 PM

[Xittenn]

It has been noted that evolution and survival =/= intelligence. I think this truth is most clearly seen in the decisions that intelligent entities make that directly harm that individual.

A Fireman can risk his life to save another. Is this an intelligent act, and is it supporting of a definition that might be given? It isn't simply a reaction to an outside stimuli which provokes a response that would support survival. It is however an example of evolution, where the survival of the species is dependent on the roles played by individuals and how their responses to outside stimuli affects the species as a whole. This is therefor not an example of intelligence but in fact evidence that survival and evolution are reactionary devices which require no thought beyond the evolved mechanism.

Harm as play is counter intuitive to the idea that intelligence is an evolved reactionary mechanism by which an intelligent entity could enable itself towards survival. Often harm as play can have serious consequences that can be manifested as terminal to said entity. So is the ability to logically inflict harm on oneself a test of intelligence?

A definition that I might give to the notion of intelligence would be . . . .

Intelligence: The ability for an evolving entity to perceive the effects of outside stimuli on its internal construct, and to make decisions about how it might react towards these stimuli.

The ability for one to excel at the notion of being intelligent would therefore be a conclusion of which entity was more capable of acquiring their own expected result.

No one flame me, I'm just participating. That means you Mr. . . . .