Where does intelligence come from?

[Biochemist]

That is inconsistent with the posted FAQ at the top of the forum. I'm only trying to steer the discussion back on topic and away from the atmosphere it is creating.

C1ay- I truly appreciate your attempt to maintain order. I was reacting (myself) to TM's style as reflected in post 41. I don't think he understands SFTGr8's point, and instead of requesting clarificaiton, TM gets a little caustic. I will do my best to assit you in maintaining order going forward. Thank you for jumping in.

[TeleMad]

Clearly, TM is not looking for an argument. He is looking for a fight. In this example, since you would not call him an idiot (and clearly, you did not), he called himself an idiot for you. Quite kind of him, really.

 

Wrong again Biochemist.

 

SFarrisTheGr8 setup an OR condition: either X or Y. Since X is not the case, then Y.

 

SFarrisTheGr8: Telemad..is well..obviously looking for an argument and doesn't care if he is right or wrong. At least I hope so or else he is an idiot.

 

And since I am not looking for an argument and I do care if I am right or wrong, then X is false so SFarrisTheGr8's other possibility, Y, holds: that is, he does say that I am an idiot.

 

Don't blame me because SFarrisTheGr8 came out slugging in his first post using the insult of idiot. He CHOSE to do that. HE chose to do that. He should have used reason instead of starting right off with the insults (and the complete mangling of my position). The person to blame is SFarrisTheGr8.

[TeleMad]

C1ay- I really think I ought to defend SFTGr8 here.

 

Gee, I wonder why that is? There's no bias involved, is there? :-)

 

Biochemist: TM has been a little bit caustic and circumferential in this post.

 

More blatant distortion by Biochemist. Deal with facts dude. SFarrisTheGr8 started right off basically saying I was an idiot. SFarrisTheGr8 also completely distorted my position in his first post. He then quickly launched a personal attack on me. If you want to blame the CORRECT person, blame SFarrisTheGr8.

 

Biochemist: It is a challenge to disagree with TM...

 

Wrong. If someone disagrees with me and they are correct, then that's that. It's not disagreement with me that's the issue, it's things like others setting up strawmen (like you do with randomness and evolution), or distorting my position (like SFarrisTheGr8 did in his first post), or someone setting up a false dichtomy (as you did with your theres-only-either-design-or-randomness argument), or making ignorant statements that just cry out to be corrected (like your saying that mammalian cells have cell walls, or your saying that the cause of intramolecular forces are unknown), etc.

 

Biochemist: ... without getting personally attacked.

 

Can you show me where I attacked other people personally? Mind you, showing me attacking their statements or positions is not the same as my having attacked them themselves.

 

Now I can show you SFarrisTheGr8 directly attacking me personally. And that's before he made half a dozen posts at this site.

 

And by the way, don't sit there like you're an angel. You've dished out a few jabs too you know.

 

Biochemist: I have counted about a half dozen folks (certainly including me) that he has included as targets.

 

So if I correct someone's science, or point out their use of flawed logic, or don't agree with their position, or expose their use of false dichotomies or strawmen, that makes them "my target"? Interesting spin there Biochemist.

[sanctus]

As a MODERATOR:

 

So, I read all the thread and found it actually very inetersting, until you all know about where....

So I make it just very drastic, from now on the threads will be back on topic else this thread will get closed. If you want to fight use the PM system, there are ways to disagree without needing to get upset.

 

 

As a MEMBER:

 

I personally think that natural selection is and isn't random depending on how you look at it.

a)In the example with the two animals, the fact that there were tall trees, a small animal and a big one is a sum of random events. Therefore the fact that the small dies is random.

b)On the other hand you can see natural selection as not random by saying that once an animal with a handicap is there (how he got the handicap is not important) the fact that he is selceted to die is just the consequence of the laws of nature.

 

It's not that I don't take side, I want to say that natural selction is or is not random dependant on the fact if you consider how one got to the point we consider.

[lindagarrette]

As a MODERATOR:

 

 

It's not that I don't take side, I want to say that natural selction is or is not random dependant on the fact if you consider how one got to the point we consider.

Natural selection is in no way random. In the first place, the laws of nature are deterministic, not random. A mutation, brought about by whatever event(s) preceeds it, may not become a factor of evolution until an environmental change deems it preferred over whatever otherwise is not as useful for survival. Remember, in space/time reality, nothing occurs without a cause.

[Fishteacher73]

b)On the other hand you can see natural selection as not random by saying that once an animal with a handicap is there (how he got the handicap is not important) the fact that he is selceted to die is just the consequence of the laws of nature.

 

 

There are also examples of what is known as the "handicap effect". A perfect example is the peacock. The massive and showy tail has NO naturalistic advantage (In fact it is quite a disadvantage). Yet females pick the male with the largest and flashiest tail to breed. The believed concept is that the male must be the fittest because he is still alive with the greatest handicap. This can be seen in a number of other species as well (predominantly birds if I recall).

 

We must remember that it is survival of the fittest at the moment. The fittest at one moment may be horribly unfit after sudden ecological (biotic and abiotic) changes. If a desert is flooded, all the nifty water conservation techiques in the world won't help you if you cannot swim. The introdution of non-indeginous species also illustrates this.

[lindagarrette]

There are also examples of what is known as the "handicap effect". A perfect example is the peacock. The massive and showy tail has NO naturalistic advantage (In fact it is quite a disadvantage). Yet females pick the male with the largest and flashiest tail to breed. The believed concept is that the male must be the fittest because he is still alive with the greatest handicap. This can be seen in a number of other species as well (predominantly birds if I recall).

 

Sort of. I believe the current thinking is that ornamentations are used to advertise genuine quality as only the healthiest males can afford doing so; mating with them will generate more and healthier offspring

[Fishteacher73]

Sort of. I believe the current thinking is that ornamentations are used to advertise genuine quality as only the healthiest males can afford doing so; mating with them will generate more and healthier offspring

 

 

That was what I was trying to say...sometimes I just get typing and do not always realize I never get to the point I was trying to make....Thanks.. :friday:

[Will]

well, i appreciate the involvement in this thread, though i can't figure out for the life of me why that immature kid had to come in and start insulting TeleMad. He, Biochemist and I were having an enjoyable discussion before then..

 

anyway, natural selection cannot be random. the reason things die or survive are based on many variables. but that doesn't make it random.

 

with the instance of the tall tree (with fruits) and the short or tall animal. it's not random that the short animal dies.. its very reasonable that the short animal would. if the short animal needs to get to the top of the trees, but can't, then the short animal dies. that isn't random.. thats just the result of all the variables put into play.

 

that's all life really is.. everything effects everything else, whether directly or indirectly. it may "appear random" and there may be "luck" involved. it may at times be seemingly random, but personally while i understand the concept of randomness i don't see how it can be realisitically applied to anything.

[TINNY]

I get more and more bored with hypography these days with all the bickering and tussles. I try to keep up with the discussion, but when I click the threads, all I find is word wars. With the slow internet connection here, I can't cope well thus my apologies for seemingly being out of context.

 

Let's consider this. I got it from an ID book, hopefully someone can point out the fallacy of it.

Any living being possesses an enormous amount of "intelligence," very much more than is necessary to build the most magnificent of cathedrals. Today, this "intelligence" is called information, but it is still the same thing. It is not programmed as in a computer, but rather it is condensed on a molecular scale in the chromosomal DNA or in that of every other organelle in each cell. This "intelligence" is the sine qua non of life. Where does it come from?... This is a problem that concerns both biologists and philosophers, and, at present, science seems incapable of solving it

[sanctus]

Tinny, for me they talk about the "potential intelligence" which may be stored in the DNA and not the "intelligence" to me the fallacy is there.

[sanctus]

Lindagarette,

can something be looked at as chaotic even when we know that is deterministic? I would say yes, all the chaotic systems I herad of are actually determinitstic but underlying there is some partial differential equation we don't know to solve analytically. Therefore I look at natural selection in two ways one if we consider all the universe let us see that it is deterministic, but if we accept that it is much too complicated so that we can can solve it analytically (at least nowadays) then natural selection can be seen as random.

[TINNY]

hmm.. i'm not quite sure of what you mean. but can intelligence arrive from matter? meaning, can it be reduced to matter? or, the information it contains came about as a result of the interactions of pieces of matter?

 

another quote:

All experiences show that every piece of creative information represents some mental effort and can be traced to a personal idea-giver who exercised his own free will, and who is endowed with an intelligent mind. For instance, let us think of the source of a book. A book consists of paper, ink, and the information it contains. Paper and ink are material elements. Their source is again matter: Paper is made of cellulose, and ink of various chemicals. However, the information in the book is nonmaterial, and cannot have a material source. The source of the information in each book is the mind of the person who wrote it.

[Tea Towel]

Intelligence can be expressed in matter but matter cannot directly lead to intelligence. It can influence intelligence but is heavily depenable on what you are born with. Effectively it is pot luck.

[Fishteacher73]

DNA is mechanical. So is a computer..It can do many more computaions more accurately quicker than most (Maybe Turtle would give a PC a run for its money...lol :friday: ). Is the Computer intelligent? Should we start calling them Hal?

[bumab]

I would agree- DNA is mechanical and thus can be thought of as a computer- input in, output out. I disagree that it's intellegent in the human sense of free will. That free will is real intellegence- the ability to make different decisions based on the same input.

 

Well... maybe intellegence and free will are seperate things... If so, sure, DNA is intellegent!

[Will]

TINNY, i'm going to start by saying that your display pictures scares me. I don't know why, but there's something really creepy about it.. :friday:

 

Now, as for your post about artificial intelligence.. well it's fake. Intelligence for me is not information or the understanding of information. For me, intelligence is the potential to learn, comprehend, and apply information.

 

Wisdom and knowledge are what is actually learned. But I don't believe that AI is anything more than an artificial mechanism we've created to use what we've taught it. Of course, we do have some AI that can learn from it's experiences and then perform differently afterwards.

 

It's the same as how our body's are constructed. We have been developed so that we can adapt, learn, train, etc.. AI will eventually get to that point I'm sure.