In my earlier post ( a couple of post ahead), one para was not clearly written, i tried editing but the system did not allow me; so i am rephrasing it here below.
The most important observation in your comment is "a tree is alive". The question that follows is how and why it is alive. Can any being that survive's or lives 'to be alive', and which invariably in most cases involves organic growth, interaction with surroundings, and regeneration or else procreates - accomplish the tasks without being intelligent. The task of continously adapting and defending against an hostile environment is stupendous. This constant struggle by organisms and its organs shows up in any and every living organisms, from the minutest microbes to the largest mammals. Only the modes of fighting the external threats change. Hence we see that all living organisms are inherently 'intelligent' but varies only in degrees.
Alrenous wrote:
Quote:Because as soon as you define intelligence, unless you explicitly include neurons, the definition will be insensitive to both neurons and transistors - only the processes that neurons and transistors embody are relevant. And like most such things, they can be embodied in myriad different ways.
Ultimately the tree's reaction is functionally identical to a simple brain's reaction. Hence, either both are intelligent, or neither.
Cyracuz wrote:
Quote:I would see the contradiction if we agree that intelligence requires consciousness. If not there is no contradiction, merely that it seems a central nervous system is needed for consciousness. But does it have to have an intellect to be intelligent? It yields all it's information willingly to any intelligent awareness that examines it. How much information it yields relates to the individual's mastery of intelligence, his skill in using the power of nature as it manifests in us.
Now, let us see where these thoughts lead us.
Both Alrenous and Cyracuz have made some pertinent and important points.
My observation on the cues from above would be as follows:
'Intelligence' is an observed characteristics of life-forms on Earth. We attribute 'intelligence' as a quality required for life-forms to survive, purely from the biological perspective. The very fact that a life-form has survived is indicative of 'intelligence'. As we saw how bacteria is able to survive, and tree too survive's the days and nights.
In the anthropic view, which is at a macro level, we find 'intelligence' metamorphised as a rare commodity of sorts just like we value rare stones and metals like pearls and gems and gold. In human beings, we consider geniuses and Nobel laureutes as intelligent person. Thats our human perspective. But IMHO, this kind of 'intelligence' is nothing special or exceptional about in the individuals per se. The march of intelligence is an ongoing process carried across generations, heavily dependent and contingent upon the knowledge base accummulated by the previous generations.
About how intelligence may be or to put it formally, alleged to be related to Consciousness, is a tricky proposition. Personally, i feel there is a strong connection between these two. About consciousness, i am troubled by a paradoxical proposition wherein a vegetable although shows some signs of intelligence, can it be said that the vegetable is self-conscious? Even if i can't find an answer to this, i am quite sure that the plant which gave fruit has in itself some kind of consciousness.
