Three kinds of intelligence.

[mark black]

.....................................

[Aetixintro]

Hi mark black

Nice post. Thanks for bringing it up. I am also of the sense that intelligence exists where life exists, perhaps also in a religious sense, but that is a different matter.

I am wondering at times what information it is that ripples through the DNA and cells in general in the tiny entities and others by the bio-electrical machinery. I wonder at all how the smallest beings processes and how the signals of those processes determines these cell-sized beings.

[mark black]

Alex,

Thanks for the thanks, but what do you mean by this:

intelligence exists where life exists.

Functional intelligence exists where life exists - even say, a scrap of lichen has what one might describe as intelligence in the way its biological structure is formed. This is not to be confused with either lichen being intellectually aware, or intelligently designed.

You ask:

I am wondering at times what information it is that ripples through the DNA and cells in general in the tiny entities and others by the bio-electrical machinery. I wonder at all how the smallest beings processes and how the signals of those processes determines these cell-sized beings.

There are two important things to remember. The first is that vast time scales involved in evolutionary development - and the second is that 99.99% of the organisms that have come into existence are now extinct.

Given these two facts, it is not so difficult to explain the internal processes of the very few that make it as deterministic, and accidentally intelligent.

I note from the other thread that you are into scientology. What's the scientology position on evolution?

mb.

[Aetixintro]

Hi

When I say that intelligence exists where life exists, I just mean the functional intelligence, that you mention, but also that hint of quality that makes the tiny entities alive and that which differentiates them from one another in addition, of course, to the possibility to develop, to evolve.

What's the scientology position on evolution?

Scientology is quite close to science and I believe that within the movement evolution is well accepted, although I suspect Mr. Hubbard has gauged his audience of deeply religious US citizens and kept it somewhat silent. There is no problem with accepting that we are on the top of the food chain and that we are leading the living world into immortality and infinity. Well, you can perhaps leave the last sentence out. Cheers!

[bus2bondi]

hi mb,

that was really interesting, but personally i'd further say that there are far more than the 3 intelligences, 7 being coined by one scientist that i can't remember at the moment, but will look up, and share it with you, and most feel even more than 7, with many even holding multiple types of intelligences at the same time. Also, i disagree that intelligence beyond the plant and animal began in Europe. As far as science has sofar proved, yet still searching, its found to be in Ethiopia with "Lucy" and the "Cradle of Civilization." Furthermore, according to evolutionary & other scientists the missing "link" in our evolution has not yet been found. The bones seem to skip the crucial evolutionary evidence, leaving a big gap that still hasn't been filled. This leaves alot for our imagination and further efforts to try and figure out, and makes it extremely difficult for anyone to metaphorically 'close the book' on the subject.

hi Aetixintro,

I wonder the same thing too, and hope someone invents a "conscious-scope" someday so we can see & understand it better. Maybe you'll invent the conscious-scope:)/deep-layer-subzero-infinite-cell-scope!?!

cheerios

[mark black]

Alex,

I'm sorry for seeming so wary, but I can't tell you how dangerous and distasteful I find religion in general. I think it the root cause of the world's ills. I don't know much about scientology - but what I have heard can't be right, can it? Alien overlords, volcanoes and migrating spirits.

I think scientifically valid knowledge has a spiritual value that is not at all magical, but follows from the dynamics laid out below. In much the same way that the simplest of organisms had to be physically correct in relation to reality in order to function, and the behaviours of animals in relation to reality was either conducive to survival or not, I believe we intellectually aware animals must accept and act in relation to scientifically valid knowledge of reality in order to survive and prosper.

We should put aside ideas like religion, nation and capitalist economics - that are not scientifically justified, not valid of reality, and thus direct our actions at odds with reality. It's because we act in the course of such false ideas that the world is in the mess it is. The human species is divided into groups defined by thier own sacred lies - each grabbing as much as they can for themselves, ignorant to the fact that we are all the same species inhabiting the same planet.

I think we should have a global government constitutionally bound to scientific understanding, using scientific knowledge and cutting edge technology to balance human welfare and environmental sustanability.

I note that what I've heard about scientology retains many of the features of traditional religions - a God figure, immortal spirits, and presumably therefore a purpose in life bearing upon an afterlife of some kind.

Even if scientology quietly accepts evolution, for me, this is inimical to the spiritual connotations of accepting scientifically valid knowledge of reality.

In scientific terms, it seems, the individual dies and the species lives on. In life therefore, it is the rational purpose of the individual to ensure the continued existence of the species. It is via the species - thousands of generations struggling to survive and breed and know, that we enjoy our ability to think and feel, that we enjoy reading, writing, architecture and art. In short, it is the species that's eternal and the individual is temporary, it is the species that develops knowledge and technology - it is to the species we make our incremental individual contribution, and the species that carries forth our legacy.

Spiritually, this perspective both honours and humbles the individual, binding the individual to the species. We have worth, but not too much, we are showered with gifts - and return them in kind. We have purpose, truth, reasonable expectations that follow from accepting the scientifically defined reality.

Further, there is a sane and legitimate purpose for government. It is to discover and employ knowledge and technology to provide for human welfare and secure the continued existence of the species.

I find this more spiritually profound than any religion I've encountered. There are no articles of belief, no God or immortal souls, and yet it is a better answer to all the spiritual questions - and also political and economic questions, to which we have so many answers, and none of them true.

mb.

[mark black]

b2b,

I think here we may be talking at cross purposes a little. Where you propose 7 or more kinds of intelligence I assume you are talking about Daniel Goleman's 'Emotional Intelligence' and the different kinds of intelligence he describes. I don't refute his ideas - I like the book, but my argument is at one level of remove.

In evolutionary terms, emotional intelligence is far more deeply rooted than intellectual intelligence - but intellectual intelligence marks a developmental milestone. Emotional intelligence developed in primates living in social groups - and in many ways, I think can be considered behavioural. But the abstract conceptualization necessary to produce art - inherent to the intellectually intelligent manipulation of concepts, comes much later, and is a new form of intelliegnce specific to human beings.

On your second point, and good points by the way, yes, to some extent I think you are correct. However, the evidence I have been able to find regarding the development of art in earlier civilizations is somewhat equivocal. And there is a significant debate in anthropological circles as to just what constitutes art.

For this reason I will happily acknowledge that the site to which I refer in the longer version of this argument - Dolni Vestonice in South-Moravia, is not the origin of intellectual intelligence in the world. But I will suggest that the artifacts found there demonstrate unequivocally the sudden occurance of art in human evolutionary development.

On your third point, to suggest a 'missing link' is somewhat spurious. The fossil record is far from complete. In the last few weeks a fossil has been discovered that suggests homo habilis and homo sapiens lived alongside eachother - whereas it was thought that homo sapiens evolved from homo habilis.

Finds test human origins theory
By James Urquhart

Two hominid fossils discovered in Kenya are challenging a long-held view of human evolution. The broken upper jaw-bone and intact skull from humanlike creatures, or hominids, are described in Nature.
Previously, the hominid Homo habilis was thought to have evolved into the more advanced Homo erectus, which evolved into us. Now, habilis and erectus are thought to be sister species that overlapped in time.

The new fossil evidence reveals an overlap of about 500,000 years during which Homo habilis and Homo erectus must have co-existed in the Turkana basin area, the region of East Africa where the fossils were unearthed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6937476.stm

As interesting as this is, it poses no challenge to the development I describe - in the terms I describe it. It is an abstraction - the difference between a street map and a road map, not inaccurate for the information omitted, just described at a different level of resolution.

mb.

[Aetixintro]

Hi mark black

Nice. You underwrite it soundly in your post of Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:16 am.

Let's move on! Cheers!

[mark black]

Alex,

I assume you are upset because of what I said about religion in general and scientology in particular in the first paragraph. You probably didn't read beyond there - because you only read, only know what you want to hear. You're behaving like a child who's just been told Santa Claus isn't real. Grow up and join the debate. This is a philosophy forum. We look with a critical eye and challenge ideas. From what I've heard scientology is no more or less proposterous than any other religion. You replace God with an alien and go from there. Same story, different characters. I think it's ridiculous - so what? If it were a force for good in the world it wouldn't matter so much how bizzare it is - but it's not, is it?

mb.

[Psychonaut]

Mark are you drunk or something?

[mark black]

psychonaut,

not all the time, no.

mb.

[Aetixintro]

Hi mark black

Regarding your post of Mon Nov 17, 2008 4:49 pm, I will answer you in my blog - viewtopic.php?t=1176&start=15.

Generally, I try to keep a strict division between Philosophy of Science and Religion. I think there is great value in keeping tight the various disciplines of Philosophy and as we are now in the very thread of Philosophy of Science, I don't want to comment on the Religion of any kind.

[mark black]

Alex,

Generally, I try to keep a strict division between Philosophy of Science and Religion. I think there is great value in keeping tight the various disciplines of Philosophy

Well, of course, you wouldn't want to let epistemology or science or ethics for that matter, interfere with claiming any mad idea to be true, would you?

mb.

[Aetixintro]

mark,

Well, of course, you wouldn't want to let epistemology or science or ethics for that matter, interfere with claiming any mad idea to be true, would you?

Can't you spew it out elsewhere, please!

[mark black]

Alex,

Can't you spew it out elsewhere, please!

I started this thread. You entered into it - initially in a complementary manner, but have since turned into a bawling infant scrawling your idiotic graffitti to the exclusion of rational discussion. So, if anyone should go elsewhere, and cease spewing thier nonesense, it's you.

mb.