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

Well, the word "intelligence" typically refers to a property of a separate unique entity. So we use language such as "I am intelligent" and "you are intelligent".

If we are instead receivers of intelligence, and not the owners/creators of intelligence....

If intelligence is like the laws of physics, not a property of this or that thing, but a property of reality itself...

Then we are starting to bend the word "intelligence" way beyond it's normal meaning. We may need another word to describe a um, uh, universal intelligence?

Religious people often solve this problem with the God concept. But this is typically just a replication of the "intelligence as property of a thing" idea, with God being simply a bigger thing, the biggest thing.

What interests me here is considering intelligence as we consider the laws of physics, that is, not the property of any particular thing within reality, but a property of reality itself.

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. — Bitter Crank

Maybe it's not a miracle? Maybe life is following the "laws of intelligence" in the very same way it is following the "laws of physics"? Or maybe the "laws of intelligence" are just an aspect of the "laws of physics" which we don't yet understand?

Then we are starting to bend the word "intelligence" way beyond it's normal meaning. We may need another word to describe a um, uh, universal intelligence? — Foghorn

I can only see two options, either (1) we use a redefined term to include the meaning we want it to have, or (2) we coin a new word.

By the way, you're saying that "nobody can own intelligence just as nobody owns the laws of physics". However, the laws of physics may not be "owned" by the objects to which they apply in the normal sense of the word, but the objects may still share in those laws by virtue of being part of the physical world. And the same may apply to intelligence. In other words, a form of shared or collective ownership. And that still leaves open the possibility of something or somebody owning or controlling the totality of intelligence, or intelligence owning or controlling itself. And this would presuppose some kind of self-awareness.

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

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" — The Logos, New Advent Encyc

Yes, does this idea perhaps transcend the subject/object paradigm you've referred to?

If God penetrates all matter, wouldn't that equal God being another word for matter? God/matter, a single unified phenomena, divided in to conceptual parts by the human mind. Or, for the atheist, we could rebrand this idea as intelligence/matter.

To my very limited understanding, what made Einstein famous was the insight that space and time are not two different phenomena in the real world, but a single phenomena which was conceptually divided in our minds. Thus the term space/time. This phrase seems a kind of bridge between how we experience space and time, and how they really are.

Catholics have a similar concept when they claim that God is everywhere at every scale in all times and places. I've frequently asked them to consider that this might mean that God and reality are two different words for the same thing. However, in my experience they've always wished to maintain a boundary between God and reality. Within their ideology such a division seems essential, because if God is everything everywhere, then there is no place one can be but with God, and thus the idea of earning salvation tends to fall apart.

Except maybe the "earn salvation" idea doesn't fall apart. Maybe earning salvation is not reuniting with God, but instead over coming the illusion that we ever were separate. That's what I hear in the "die to be reborn" advice from Jesus.

And that still leaves open the possibility of something or somebody owning or controlling the totality of intelligence — Apollodorus

Yes, agreed. I'm not allergic to the God concept, or however you might describe the "something or somebody".

Does this help? Are we exploring the concept of division? Do "things" exist in the real world? Or is reality a single thing, which is divided conceptually? I seem to be exploring the "reality as single thing" notion.

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

I can vote for this. We are exploring "a" question, not necessarily a right question.

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? — Tom Storm

Why can bacteria perform actions which if we did them we'd say they are intelligent?

Bacteria can select specific information (virus DNA), store that information, and retrieve that information as needed, in service to a goal of self preservation.

That's pretty intelligent, especially when we consider that half the humans we know can't successfully perform the same operation. :-)

Bacteria For President!!!!

I seem to be exploring the "reality as single thing" notion. — Foghorn

In that case, it wouldn't be bad to start with a definition of "reality" or "reality as single thing" and then look into how it relates to intelligence. Presumably, we can only talk about reality if there is an intelligence there that enables us to be aware of it and analyze it rationally.

It probably wouldn't be a good idea to use terms like "God" or else we run the risk of the thread being taken over by the materialists/anti-theists and not getting very far.

Presumably, we can only talk about reality if there is an intelligence there that enables us to be aware of it and analyze it rationally. — Apollodorus

Well yes, but now we arrive at a problem which Wayfarer may wish to comment on. It's rather difficult to see the unity of all things (should that exist) using a human mind machine which operates by a process of division. Thus, some investigators set aside the analyze rationally method, or downplay it's importance at least.

It probably wouldn't be a good idea to use terms like "God" or else we run the risk of the thread being taken over by the materialists/anti-theists and not getting very far. — Apollodorus

Yea, I agree, that could happen. I'm not interested in recycling that debate, I'm just reporting I'm not allergic to the God idea. That said, I'm not allergic to setting such language aside either.

The laws of physics are not a property of any particular thing within reality, but a property of reality itself. These laws are expressed in a seemingly infinite number of varied circumstances. So 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

Well that depends. There's definitely an aspect of physical law that depends on the geometry of the universe (e.g. the inverse square laws) rather than the contents, but as modern physics has evolved, more and more of physical law is interpreted as objects (quantum fields, properties of objects like charge).

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

Evolution itself emerges from those physical laws plus the presence of certain objects that obey those laws. It's a lot dumber than people give it credit for: random mutation adding noise to the gene pool (considered an inevitable but negative feature of any other system), the heritability of genes, and lots and lots of death.

It's rather difficult to see the unity of all things (should that exist) using a human mind machine which operates by a process of division. — Foghorn

Not that difficult. The way I see it, the same human mind machine operating by a process of division also has the capacity to see unity in diversity. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to grasp concepts like universals. It was for this very reason that Plato and his followers introduced the theory of forms and other concepts in order to assist the mind in seeing the unity underlying all reality. Try to imagine or think in your head that everything you see is made of luminous energy or intelligent light. After a while, you'll begin to understand. The flip side to that is that it won't help much in analyzing things scientifically or in a way acceptable to science.

The way I see it, the same human mind machine operating by a process of division also has the capacity to see unity in diversity. — Apollodorus

Do we see unity itself via rationality? Or do we see thoughts about unity?

I've been proposing intelligence is embedded in reality. This idea is a product of thought, and so I'm still conceiving of intelligence as one thing, and reality as another. Has my mind conceptually divided in to two that which is actually really one?

I'm still conceiving of intelligence as one thing, and reality as another. Has my mind conceptually divided in to two that which is actually really one? — Foghorn

The mind sees both unity and diversity, subject and object, in order to rationally analyze reality, in the same way it sees changelessness in order to see change, etc.

But unity itself is part of the subject which is one, whereas diversity pertains to the objective world.

In everyday life we tend to emphasize diversity and pay less attention to unity. But when we focus more on unity, our perspective and experience change accordingly. Ultimately, subject and object must be one or consisting of the same stuff, which is intelligence.

That's pretty intelligent, especially when we consider that half the humans we know can't successfully perform the same operation. :-)

Bacteria For President!!!! — Foghorn

You don't say :-)

"half" is pretty generous, more like all

Or, for the atheist, we could rebrand this idea as intelligence/matter. — Foghorn

Ha @ re-branding

Reading these responses, I feel like the anthropic principal is relveant:

All the laws of Nature have particular constants associated with them, the gravitational constant, the speed of light, the electric charge, the mass of the electron, Planck's constant from quantum mechanics. Some are derived from physical laws (the speed of light, for example, comes from Maxwell's equations). However, for most, their values are arbitrary. The laws would still operate if the constants had different values, although the resulting interactions would be radically different....

ll the above constants are critical to the formation of the basic building blocks of life. And, the range of possible values for these constants is very narrow, only about 1 to 5% for the combination of constants. Outside this range, and life (in particular, intelligent life) would be impossible.

All these conditions basically ask three questions 1) why is there any structure at all to the Universe, 2) why does this structure lead to the capability for life to exist, and 3) why does life lead to intelligence to understand this structure?.

The anthropic principle usually divides into two types, weak and strong. The weak anthropic principle simply states that the current Universe is of the form that allows intelligent observers. In other words, there is the right amount of complexity and time for intelligence to evolve. This is obviously true and few people disagree with this formulation of the anthropic principle.

The strong anthropic principle says the Universe has these conditions because it *must* have them in order to have intelligence life (us). Our existence is then end goal of a plan. The strong form of the anthropic principle goes against the Copernican principle by insisting the we are special, an intellectual center of the Universe (all intelligent species would be at their "center"), because we exist and think.

The strong form seems extreme and the weak form seems unsatisfying (if you heard of a man surviving a firing squad, would you not want to know why?). The key focus here is that a naturalistic stance for science requires that the Universe is causally closed. That science is complete and the forces of physics are the only forces in the Universe and everything can be explained by those forces. The anthropic principle is seen as a challenge to the naturalistic view and requires an "outside" force or guiding deity.

It seems like a corollary principal could be reached outside the physical sciences. That is, we know meaning exists, because we experience consciousness and understand meaning. If you take the argument that meaning is contingent on sublation, that is, you can only define a thing by what it is not, then you are forced to posit that any complete whole of being must, to have ever created understanding, have posited something outside itself as a means to understand itself. This is where you get Boehme's cosmology, or Hegel's contradiction of Being and Nothing, which forms Becoming.

In either case, the historical/physical, or the purely logical, idealist model, you end up with intellect being essential, pretty much definitionally. It's meaningless to talk about anything existing without the ability of something to posit the negative of that thing.

I think that this keeps coming up in the material sciences is evidence of the fact that the German idealists were on to something, although their impenetrably obscure systems makes it hard to say just what. Indeed, it keeps popping up in my news feeds that there are new papers on this idea, but I haven't even read the popsci interpretations yet: https://news.yahoo.com/scientists-believe-universe-conscious-134500165.html

I think that this keeps coming up in the material sciences is evidence of the fact that the German idealists were on to something, although their impenetrably obscure systems makes it hard to say just what. — Count Timothy von Icarus

:up:

If God penetrates all matter, wouldn't that equal God being another word for matter? — Foghorn

:angry:

Catholics have a similar concept when they claim that God is everywhere at every scale in all times and places. I've frequently asked them to consider that this might mean that God and reality are two different words for the same thing. — Foghorn

It is common to all Christian denominations that God is immanent and yet transcendent. Basically 'immanent' means present, but transcendent means beyond, so it's a paradox, but I think there are parallels in practically all the religions.

But you can't equate God with 'things' or 'mere stuff' because then you've simply lost sight of what is being contemplated. That of course leads into many deep questions of philosophical theology but then, we are discussing metaphysics.

It is common to all Christian denominations that God is immanent and yet transcendent. Basically 'immanent' means present, but transcendent means beyond, so it's a paradox, but I think there are parallels in practically all the religions. — Wayfarer

Yes, I hear you, and that seems an accurate description of how Catholics think about this. You would know better than I how other religions regard it.

But you can't equate God with 'things' or 'mere stuff' because then you've simply lost sight of what is being contemplated. — Wayfarer

Well, ok, but that's not what I'm contemplating. What I'm contemplating is a single unified reality, with conceptual boundaries imposed upon it by human minds which operate by a process of division.

As example, we have words "mind" and "body" which conceptually divide the human form in to parts. But, as I'm sure you know, mind and body are so intimately connected that functionally, in the real world, it's more accurate to consider them as one thing.

So, maybe reality itself is not divided in to mind and body but is, like the human form, more accurately described as a single thing.

If what we call intelligence is an integral property of reality just as the laws of physics are, that might explain why creatures as primitive as bacteria can perform the kinds of complex operations described above.

It's a theory, that's all.

And I'd be the last to disagree with you. What I'm trying to do is situate your ideas within the broader context. Your intuitions are sound but as this is a philosophy site, it's worth the while to consider the question in that context.

What I'm contemplating is a single unified reality, with conceptual boundaries imposed upon it by human minds which operate by a process of division. — Foghorn

That is the kind of approach that characterises non-dualism. It's much more associated with Eastern philosophy than with Western. That sense of non-division or undivideness is the aim of those philosophies.

If what we call intelligence is an integral property of reality just as the laws of physics are, that might explain why creatures as primitive as bacteria can perform the kinds of complex operations described above. — Foghorn

Again, can't help but agree. I'm just casting around for ways to situate it in terms of philosophy and science, because I'm pretty sure, most contemporary scientists and philosophers wouldn't.

What I'm trying to do is situate your ideas within the broader context. Your intuitions are sound but as this is a philosophy site, it's worth the while to consider the question in that context. — Wayfarer

Ok, no problem. I'm not objecting, and appreciate your knowledge of the broader context, which I largely lack.

That is the kind of approach that characterises non-dualism. It's much more associated with Eastern philosophy than with Western. That sense of non-division or undivideness is the aim of those philosophies. — Wayfarer

I'm vaguely aware of this much. Sometimes people ask me if I'm a Buddhist, and I have to reply that I have no idea. :-)

As you may have already suggested yourself, philosophy may not be the best method for appreciating whatever unity exists, given that philosophy is made of thought, and thought operates by a process of division.

philosophy may not be the best method for appreciating whatever unity exists, given that philosophy is made of thought, and thought operates by a process of division. — Foghorn

That is philosophical analysis.

That is philosophical analysis. — Wayfarer

Yes, and it's possible to use philosophical analysis to identify cases where philosophy may not be the most effective tool for the job.

Intelligence is the capacity to be in the present. The more you are in the past or are in the future, the less intelligent you are. Intelligence is the capacity to be here-now, to be in this moment and nowhere else. Then you are awake. — Bhagwan-Awe

I'm quite familiar with this perspective, and the experience too, and do agree with you. This is why I was questioning above whether philosophy is an adequate tool for exploring whatever unity may exist in the real world.

Philosophy doesn't actually focus on the real world, but rather on our thoughts about the real world.

From what you've said I can see I don't need to explain this to you.

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

Your question describes universal "Intelligence" as-if it is something "out there in Nature", like Energy, except that, instead of converting Cold to Hot, it converts Dumb to Smart. Perhaps, everything in the world is being irradiated with that ambient Smart Power, but only certain things are receptive to it's wisdom. Similarly, some people have postulated that "Consciousness" is being beamed at us like radio signals, but only a select few (humans, apes, whales) are tuned-in to the proper frequency to get a clear signal. But where (out there in the ether) is the Intelligence radio station? And who is the station manager?

Radio Brain :
"the brain may be a receiver and transmitter of consciousness."
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-06-spiritual-science-perspective-consciousness.html

I have considered a similar idea, but I use the more generic term "Information" instead of anthropocentric "Intelligence". Information is indeed related to Intelligence & Wisdom, but as a transmitter and transformer, it works more like Energy as an agent of Change. Scientists have found that Information is an essential Quality of everything in the world. I won't go into the details of that notion here. Yet, it's the basis of my personal worldview that I call Enformationism. Like Energy, Information is a "property of reality", but it has Mental effects in addition to its causal effects on Matter. Its expression as Intelligence is a matter of degree : some have it and some don't. :smile:

Is information the only thing that exists? :
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431191-500-inside-knowledge-is-information-the-only-thing-that-exists/

Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

More on cloning - scary article from The New Atlantis

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/just-say-no-to-human-monkey-chimeras

With respect to the question you ask in the OP - check out this review. It's rather a long review of two current books on philosophy of biology. A point that I noticed was this:

Turner identifies homeostasis — the living organism’s ability to maintain a stable inner environment in response to a changeful outer environment — as the “Second Law of Biology” after natural selection. This idea, that the active maintenance of a stable inner environment is the defining condition of life, belongs originally to the 19th-century French physiologist Claude Bernard, who is Turner’s main hero. In Purpose and Desire, Turner pursues his argument that homeostasis demands “at least rudimentary forms of cognition and intentionality,” the ability to recognize and purposefully respond to environmental conditions.

So, there you have an argument that intelligence is intrinsic to life itself, if not to 'reality' in the more abstract sense.

Your question describes universal "Intelligence" as-if it is something "out there in Nature", like Energy — Gnomon

You're mention of energy seems very useful, thank you for that. Here's why...

I've been suggesting that what we call intelligence, and matter, may be not two things but one. That is, two different words for the same thing. United in reality, divided conceptually.

Isn't this the case with energy and matter? Isn't matter just one of the expressions of energy?

Not sure about any of this, but I'd never thought of the relevance of energy/matter to this discussion, so thanks.

Space/time may be another example. We have two different words "space" and "time" because we've long assumed these to be two different phenomena, thus we created two different nouns. If I understand Einstein at all, he seems to be saying that space and time are really the same thing, and the difference we perceive between them is an illusion created by our minds. Well, that last part might be me and not Einstein, not sure.

More on cloning - scary article from The New Atlantis — Wayfarer

Thanks, I had vague knowledge of that, but it's good to see an article which spells it out in more detail. My prediction is that at some point there will be a tidal wave of public opposition to gene editing. It's too abstract for the common guy and gal to engage now, but as example, if/when somebody produces some bizarre creature which we can observe in a more concrete manner, it's going to trigger something primal in the human psyche. Looks like science is rushing in that direction as fast as it can.

In Purpose and Desire, Turner pursues his argument that homeostasis demands “at least rudimentary forms of cognition and intentionality,” the ability to recognize and purposefully respond to environmental conditions.

Yes, well, the bacteria example seems to illustrate this claim pretty well. I still find that fascinating.

The question of whether what we call intelligence also inhabits non-life reality is an interesting one. Your post might help us divide this theory in to life vs. non-life.

If intelligence is not something different than matter, the way space is not different than time, then we could propose all of reality is made of this phenomena, whatever one wants to call it.

My prediction is that at some point there will be a tidal wave of public opposition to gene editing. — Foghorn

I think there needs to be. Actually, it’s amazing that there isn’t more of an outcry about it. I suppose that it’s because it’s just one item in an avalanche of technological news. It’s kind of gone under the radar.

I think if you read up on it, you’re in a good position to be a ‘citizen activist’ about this subject, and it sure needs attention.

Have a close look at that magazine I linked to, The New Atlantis. It’s specifically about technology and society. You will find a lot of material there relevant to your interest in this subject.

If intelligence is not something different than matter, the way space is not different than time, then we could propose all of reality is made of this phenomena, whatever one wants to call it. — Foghorn

Right! But understand how this would be treated if you proposed it in, say, postgrad biology. You would be asked for evidence to support it. Many tough questions - how would you detect this? What makes you say that it’s there? If it is there, how come other scientists aren’t talking about it, or which scientists are?

Also, you’re not talking ‘phenomena’. Phenomena are ‘what appears’. If ‘intelligence’ is something ‘behind’ everything, something that causes, then by definition, it’s not phenomena - it’s what causes phenomena. That’s a distinction that needs to be made.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to shoot you down - but understand the territory, which is a large territory.

Isn't this the case with energy and matter? Isn't matter just one of the expressions of energy? — Foghorn

Einstein’s famous equation, e=mc², establishes the equivalence of matter and energy, but where does ‘intelligence’ fit into that? In current theory, intelligence is a product of living beings, and living beings are a product of the interactions of matter. Do you think that is true?

Einstein’s famous equation, e=mc2, establishes the equivalence of matter and energy, but where does ‘intelligence’ fit into that? — Wayfarer

It may not, I'm obviously speculating in every direction, and unable to prove anything.

What interests me is the way our minds impose a pattern of division on reality. So for example, we saw a division between energy and matter (thus the two nouns) that doesn't really exist. We saw a division between space and time, which apparently also doesn't exist. Mind and body may be another example. There may be countless examples. And so, one wonders if an apparent division between intelligence and life, or intelligence and matter, is yet another form of illusion.

In current theory, intelligence is a product of living beings — Wayfarer

That's what I'm questioning. Are living things the television station, the source of intelligence? Or the television set, the receiver of intelligence?

The typical conception is that natural selection rewarded intelligence and so primitive life evolved in to advanced life, as defined by the phenomena of intelligence. But then we have bacteria, which are performing complex data management operations which seem reasonably labeled intelligent. As we've discussed, Jennifer Doudna learned how to make CRISPR from bacteria. Why didn't they get the Nobel instead of her?? :-)