In reality there is much less intelligence than one would hope for.

Continuing with my current obsession...

What if some religious people (not those simply repeating memorized slogans) are intelligent and sensitive enough to have some experience of the global intelligence being proposed here.

But they weren't able to conceive of the intelligence not having a source. And so they filled that hole with a human like character which made sense to them.

If true, then perhaps what these religious people perceive is real, but their attempt to explain what they perceive is not expressed in the language of our modern science based era.

So for example, a person might claim that reality is governed by an all powerful entity called "Physics". That's basically right, except for the entity part. As far as we know at least.

In reality there is much less intelligence than one would hope for. — Bitter Crank

Your point is taken. But to agree with it wouldn't we have to presume that we who judge levels of intelligence are more intelligent than the reality which created "our" intelligence?

You know, evolution weeds out things that don't work. If humans are on average stupid, then evolution would be acting intelligently by weeding us out. So if one stands back far enough, perhaps there is plenty of intelligence? I dunno, thinking on the run here...

Well, what is intelligence and what is un-intelligence? Are we intelligent? Are we living intelligently? What is the measure of intelligence? Is intelligence a product of the intellect or separate from it. Can intelligence be gathered from information/books or does it need more? Is intelligence simply an accumulation of the old/ known, or it is more than that? Is the cosmos intelligent? Are animals intelligent? These are some but not all the questions that confront an inquiry into intelligence, it seems......

...It also seems humans fare poorly in that dept, if we look at the overall situation of our lives and our living conditions.

What if intelligence is like this? What if it's not a property of this or that thing, but a property of reality which is expressed in many different ways in many different circumstances? — Foghorn

I think you're on to something but as it's such a huge topic, it warrants caution. When it comes to such foundational issues, a millimeter off at the outset results in kilometer-wide gaps further along.

I've been thinking about this topic a great deal for many years, so there's a point I want to try and get across. This is that whatever else intelligence is (or mind, for that matter), it doesn't exist as an objective reality for us. It is not something we can know - not because it's unreal, but because it is 'that which is seeking to know'. So there is a paradoxical or reflexive quality to the subject, which is like 'the hand trying to grasp itself' or 'the eye trying to see itself'. And realising that reflexive problem should stymie efforts to think it out - you're never going to identify the nature of mind by trying to think it through objectively. It lies prior to the subject-object divide. That's why it's a massive stumbling block for modern, Galilean-style science, which presumes the subject-object divide as an axiom.

What if the conception "my intelligence" and "your intelligence" is mistaken? What if nobody can own intelligence just as nobody owns the laws of physics? — Foghorn

Erwin Schrodinger devoted his later years, after having discovered the equation that made him famous, to just such questions. He studied Vedanta, and also Schopenhuauer and Greek philosophy.

Consciousness is never experienced in the plural, only in the singular. Not only has none of us ever experienced more than one consciousness, but there is also no trace of circumstantial evidence of this ever happening anywhere in the world. If I say that there cannot be more than one consciousness in the same mind, this seems a blunt tautology — we are quite unable to imagine the contrary. — Erwin Schrodinger, Oneness of Mind

Well, what is intelligence — skyblack

That's a good question! I'm stumped for the moment. What do I mean by "reality is intelligent"??

What if intelligence is like this? What if it's not a property of this or that thing, but a property of reality which is expressed in many different ways in many different circumstances? — Foghorn

I don't see why this can't be the case. Possibly difficult to prove but perfectly conceivable.

By the way, how many phenomena are there in bouncing a ball?

I'm definitely an interested in where you are going, but I could use some help in going there with you. You seem to have summarized years of investigation in to a single paragraph, which is too big a bite for me at present. If it interests you to continue, further explanation, examples, simpler language perhaps, would be read with interest here.

I'm definitely an interested in where you are going, but I could use some help in going therewith you. You seem to have summarized years of investigation in to a single paragraph, which is too big a bite for me at present. If it interests you to continue, further explanation, examples, simpler language perhaps, would be read with interest here. — Foghorn

A nice approach. This is how one proceeds in a dialogue. Thanks for providing an example for the neurotic and the clueless.

wouldn't we have to presume that we who judge levels of intelligence are more intelligent than the reality which created "our" intelligence? — Foghorn

The natural systems that brought about our reality were not, in my opinion, intelligent. Inordinately complex, absolutely. We rate our intelligence as great--which it is in our system of rating intelligence. We don't have any third-party observers to offer comparative ratings, so we may be quite mistaken.

The evolutionary proof of fitness is long term survival and as exemplars of intelligence, we do not have a long record. We have made advances but these were separated by long plateaus. The Stone Age lasted a long time. So did our life as hunter-gatherers--200,000 years, to pick a round number. Settled urban life is very recent (10-12,000 years ago) and the harvest of technology is still coming in.

There are serious flaws in our intelligence. For one big thing, We are not at all skilled at long-term thinking, planning, and management. By "long-term" I mean 100 years out. We are having great difficulty planning for carbon reduction (and a worse climate crisis) at midcentury, only 29 years away. Planning, and managing practice, for 69 years out (2100) is pretty feeble. Thinking, planning, and managing for the 22nd century is hard to even imagine.

In a worst case scenario, the climate crisis of our own making may be the end of our intelligence. I hope not, but success can not be a foregone conclusion.

What if we are not the source of intelligence but rather receivers, much as a television reads and interprets a signal from beyond itself? — Foghorn

This just leads to an old argument about Platonic realms and the nature of consciousness. I know there is some sympathy here from one or two people for the notion that someone born with prodigious gifts (music, art, maths) may be bringing in experience from a previous life (not something I believe).

Intelligence is a rather more rubbery notion. There are people who read a lot and have astonishing memories. There are those who are able to synthesise information and see patterns. The mind can do amazing things. So what? What is it about intelligence that suggests an otherworldly dimension? Why the need for a 'signal from beyond itself'. Can you provide examples of intelligence in operation that can't be explained by physicalist answers?

The natural systems that brought about our reality were not, in my opinion, intelligent. — Bitter Crank

And yet those systems created something that would have been labeled very intelligent if we had created it. You know, the glory of the universe is beyond spectacular, we probably have no words which can express it adequately.

While I'm still struggling with what I mean by the word "intelligence" don't we judge that in part by that which is created?

You seem to have summarized years of investigation in to a single paragraph, which is too big a bite for me at present. — Foghorn

Fair enough. That's partially a consequence of the forum environment, and social media generally, where you have to keep your posts short. It's the subject that most interests me, but it's hard to articulate, and it gets a lot of pushback.

I don't know where I would suggest you start, though. You're tackling some of the fundamental questions of philosophy. For instance:

bouncing a ball might seem to an observer to be an entirely different phenomena than the orbit of a planet, but the same laws govern both. — Foghorn

This is basically what Newton discovered, and why the discovery of Newton's laws are considered as the beginning of modern science proper, and also why they're considered universal. (Of course, since Einstein it has become clear that their scope is limited to a range, although we can leave that aside).

But as far as we know (religion and alien theory aside) evolution doesn't arise from any particular source. It would seem to fit our definition of an intelligent process, but does not appear to be the creation of any particular entity. — Foghorn

That's another very big statement. The reason for that, is because the scientific approach to evolution deliberately sets aside the idea of a creator - as is well-known, this being a subject of intense controversy in culture and philosophy. (I'm not inclined towards any form of 'creation science' or religious theory of evolution but I'm also dubious of the 'theory of fortuitous origins'.)

What if the conception "my intelligence" and "your intelligence" is mistaken? What if nobody can own intelligence just as nobody owns the laws of physics? — Foghorn

This is the most interesting statement, but let's look at it through the perspective of modern philosophy of mind going back to Descartes. He posited a model in which there was 'res extensia' - extended matter, which was devoid of intellegince - and 'res cogitans' - which is pure mind, if you like, the 'thinking subject', not in itself matter. And most thinking about this subject has been shaped by reactions to this dualistic model in the time since.

I would say that in effect, modern thinking has attempted to dispense with the very idea of 'res cogitans', and the insistence that 'res extensia' - physical matter - is the fundamental stuff of the world. That is the origin of scientific materialism or physicalism, which I think is certainly predominant in secular culture. It's the belief that matter (which nowadays, because of Einstein, is understood to be matter-energy) is the only real substance, and that intelligence is an emergent property or attribute of the physical process of evolution. That picture is what is loosely called 'neo-Darwinian materialism'. ('Neo-Darwinian' because in addition to Darwinian theory of natural selection, it incorporates genetics, which Darwin knew nothing about. 'Materialist' because it believes the process is essentially physical.)

So, in that context, the answer to your question, 'what is intelligence?' would be that it is the evolved capacity of intelligent primates, such as ourselves.

Whereas the tack I took on the question is from outside that perspective, but also not on the intelligent design side of the argument. I took a perspective from Indian philosophy, that of 'non-dualism', as a contrast to Descartes' mind-body dualism. And the advantage of that approach is that it subverts the Cartesian presumption that 'res cogitans' is literally a kind of attribute-bearing substance or subject.

There's an intriguing parallel to your suggestion in some ancient texts:

God, according to [the Stoics], "did not make the world as an artisan does his work, but it is by wholly penetrating all matter that He is the demiurge of the universe" (Galen, "De qual. incorp." in "Fr. Stoic.", ed. von Arnim, II, 6); He penetrates the world "as honey does the honeycomb" (Tertullian, "Adv. Hermogenem", 44), this God so intimately mingled with the world is fire or ignited air; inasmuch as He is the principle controlling the universe, He is called Logos; and inasmuch as He is the germ from which all else develops, He is called the seminal Logos (logos spermatikos). This Logos is at the same time a force and a law, an irresistible force which bears along the entire world and all creatures to a common end, an inevitable and holy law from which nothing can withdraw itself, and which every reasonable man should follow willingly (Cleanthus, "Hymn to Zeus" in "Fr. Stoic." I, 527-cf. 537). — The Logos, New Advent Encyc

In that context, 'intelligence' can be conceptualised as inherent within the workings of nature.

What is it about intelligence that suggests an otherworldly dimension? — Tom Storm

I'm not proposing an otherworldly dimension, but rather the opposite. The theory is that intelligence is built in to the fabric of observable physical reality, in the same way the laws of physics are.

Perhaps it's helpful to observe that while the laws of physics are very real, they don't exist in the sense of having mass, weight, shape or form, location etc. Intelligence might be like that?

Why the need for a 'signal from beyond itself'. — Tom Storm

As I currently understand this theory, the signal is not from beyond itself. If intelligence is a property of physical reality, there is no beyond from which the signal would come. In this theory, the signal is built in to reality itself. In this theory, various "things" within reality can manifest this built in signal to varying degrees. Mozart can manifest symphonies, whereas I just play the harmonica, poorly.

Ok. I see no need or evidence for this. Why go here?

As I currently understand this theory, the signal is not from beyond itself. — Foghorn

They were your words not mine.

Can you provide examples of intelligence in operation that can't be explained by physicalist answers?

So, in that context, the answer to your question, 'what is intelligence?' would be that it is the evolved capacity of intelligent primates, such as ourselves. — Wayfarer

One of the topics that got me going in this direction was a month or so I spent learning about CRISPR, a new technology which makes gene editing easier. Here's the relevant bit...

CRISPR is built upon what bacteria have been doing for many millions of years. Bacteria defend themselves from viruses by grabbing a bit of DNA from the virus and storing it in the bacteria's own DNA. This allows the bacteria to recognize the virus the next time they see it, and provide the appropriate defensive reaction.

Bacteria are selecting particular information, storing it, and then referencing it as needed.

Bacteria.

Jennifer Doudna got the Nobel prize for understanding and leveraging what bacteria have been doing since the dawn of time.

So, the idea that intelligence is the evolved capacity of primates seems a pretty inadequate theory at the moment.

I'm outta gas for today, the dinner table calling my name. Thanks much for all the responses! Looking forward to more tomorrow.

Ok. I see no need or evidence for this. Why go here? — Tom Storm

Check out the above post about bacteria if you want.

@Foghorn

The inquirer can ask the questions to themselves, or in a dialogue, is what i meant. I wasn't asking you to answer them. Good thread.

So, the idea that intelligence is the evolved capacity of primates seems a pretty inadequate theory at the moment. — Foghorn

A distinction is routinely made between intelligence guided by intention and planning, such as h. sapiens exhibits, and the instinctive reactions which animate other forms of sentient life. Instinctive reactions can give rise to many amazingly complex behaviours on both the cellular and species level. But I don't think the modern evolutionary synthesis regards this as being the result of intelligence. Modern evolutionary thought has been in the past hostile to any sense of goal-directedness in nature. That is starting to change, through the appreciation of epigenetics and the emergence of the extended evolutionary synthesis, but still, I think the mainstream is that 'intentional intelligence' is still the sole province of humans and the higher animals.

@Foghorn

On a side note since you have mentioned bacteria you might take a look, and contemplate, if you wish, on how unicellulars evolved by a single principle, and that is the pain-pleasure principle. The implications of this at the level of humans is quite significant, and will give an insight into how trapped the human mind is within the network of pain and pleasure.

Ok. Can't see how any of this gets you to:

What if we are not the source of intelligence but rather receivers, much as a television reads and interprets a signal from beyond itself? — Foghorn

Perhaps it's helpful to observe that while the laws of physics are very real, they don't exist in the sense of having mass, weight, shape or form, location etc. Intelligence might be like that? — Foghorn

And that would mean that the universe is intelligent and consists of various forms and degrees of intelligence. As proposed by Platonism and other monistic systems.

What if intelligence is . .. a property of reality — Foghorn

Perhaps instead of intelligence, maybe self awareness or consciousness might be a better choice of words?

In either case, what you're saying sounds a little like this: https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/video/consciousness-as-a-fundamental-building-block-of-the-universe

I think of this as sort of a recursion thing. Our bodies are composed of atoms, yet we can look at our bodies and say "Hey, I'm made of atoms". How is this possible?

I do not have any answers - and I'm not even sure that this is the right question.

It's a deep mystery which science is just starting to grapple with. If mankind can succeed in not self destructing, perhaps in a 100 or a 1000 or 100000 years we may have some better understanding of this.

And yet those systems created something that would have been labeled very intelligent if we had created it. — Foghorn

That's the miracle in it! Following the Big Bang, the particles formed into atoms and molecules, made stars that later on exploded, creating still more and heavier elements in a cloud of dust that congealed into this celestial ball, billions of years after which we came along. I don't know why or how the universe pulled off the trick of turning mud into vigorous single-celled life, or single celled life into primates with a penchant for proclaiming their preeminence, but it did.

We are not under-rating the universe if we say it isn't intelligent. The universe is sublime [inspiring awe because of beauty, grandeur, and transcendent immensity]. The universe encompasses everything, from the farthest flung galaxy right down to our posts on The Philosophy Forum.

It doesn't require our assistance.

I don't know why or how the universe pulled off the trick of turning mud into vigorous single-celled life.... — Bitter Crank

Let alone superheated gaseous plasma into life-bearing mud. Maybe it wanted to have the experience of getting up late one morning and ambling down to the store to buy a lemon gelato.

Maybe it wanted to have the experience of getting up late one morning and ambling down to the store to buy a lemon gelato. — Wayfarer

I think this is the most reasonable conclusion.

The inquirer can ask the questions to themselves, or in a dialogue, is what i meant. I wasn't asking you to answer them. Good thread. — skyblack

I hear you, and thanks for the thumbs up. Glad you're enjoying the thread.

They were your words not mine. — Tom Storm

Yes, agreed. I'm struggling with words like "intelligence" in this thread. And please note, I stated in the OP that these ideas are just what's on my mind. I'm making no claim to "The Truth".

I'm struggling with words like "intelligence" in this thread. — Foghorn

I don't see any problem with the word "intelligence" as long as it is adequately defined.

It may be said that intelligence is the power to grasp or be aware of information. However, as every act of awareness implies self-awareness and self-awareness is the background on which all conscious experience takes place, it wouldn't be wrong to speak of self-aware intelligence.

This would classify reality into entities that are increasingly aware of themselves and of their essential identity with one another toward the top, and entities that are increasingly non-self-aware and differentiated toward the bottom. More or less as envisaged by Plotinus and others.

A distinction is routinely made between intelligence guided by intention and planning, such as h. sapiens exhibits, and the instinctive reactions which animate other forms of sentient life. Instinctive reactions can give rise to many amazingly complex behaviours on both the cellular and species level. But I don't think the modern evolutionary synthesis regards this as being the result of intelligence. — Wayfarer

Ok, I hear you in regards to semantics and definitions etc, and agree that what you've expressed is the most common view.

I'm just asking members to reflect on the fact that the behavior seen in bacteria (selecting, storing, and retrieving information for a specific purpose) is labeled intelligence when higher life forms do it. So maybe the distinction you reference merits closer inspection?

I would of course agree that bacteria don't manifest intelligence in the same way that humans do. But this is already accounted for in the theory I'm presenting. Just as there is one law of physics which manifests in an infinite variety of ways in particular situations, the same may be true for intelligence. If we compare life forms to televisions, then some TV sets can display in HD color, while other TV sets can display only in low res black and white. But both sets display the same signal in some manner.

Trees are another example. I recently heard a tree expert on NPR explain how trees can share information about threats, share resources, fight wars, identify their own offspring etc. Trees don't have brains or nervous systems, there is no "me" at the heart of the tree making decisions. But the cooperative and information management behavior observed in trees is labeled intelligence when we do it.

We could respond to such observations by saying such behavior is simply the result of random mutations, natural selection, evolution etc. I'm good with that. I'm just pointing out that this
seemingly purely mechanical process with no mind or intention is producing what we typically
label intelligent behavior across the tree of life from bacteria to humans.