Does intelligence need to be redefined?

[Difflugia]

Does intelligence need to be redefined?

[Difflugia]

I think there are a few areas where our discussion might benefit from clarification and focus.

That's exactly what I've been telling you.

You suggested that I am redefining intelligence arbitrarily or making an unwarranted "leap" from traits associated with intelligence to calling these processes intelligent. However, I have consistently defined intelligence in this context as the capacity to solve problems, optimize systems, or generate complexity in adaptive ways.

That's not a sufficient definition of intelligence. For now, let's just use the long form. Make your argument about the capacity to solve problems (whatever that means in context), the ability to optimize systems (whatever "system" and "optimal" mean in context), and generate complexity (however one might measure complexity in context). Calling any of those "intelligence" will invariably lead to confusion because they broaden the concept of intelligence far beyond what is useful.

This is not an arbitrary redefinition

It's arbitrary because it's your own personal definition, regardless of how you arrived at it.

but an attempt to broaden the framework in a scientifically meaningful way—one that aligns with observable patterns in natural systems.

This just seems to be word salad. What is scientifically meaningful about broadening the concept of intelligence? What does it mean for your definition to be aligned with observable patterns in nature?

By labeling this a "leap" or "equivocation," you seem to have mischaracterized my argument (a strawman fallacy).

Describing the flaws in your approach isn't the same as changing your claim. Ask ChatGPT what a straw man actually is.

I am not anthropomorphizing natural systems or invoking supernatural forces but suggesting that certain traits we associate with intelligence are evident in evolutionary processes themselves.

That's not what you said. You said that intelligence is evident in evolutionary processes. If you want to discuss specific traits or patterns, I may discuss those with you.

Could we discuss this specific point rather than reframing it as something I haven’t claimed?

Here's your claim:

However, the evidence overall does not discount intelligent designing involved. How something unfolds intelligently can be overlooked and denied as fervently as those who deny overall evolution in favour of instantly manifested design.

When I said that there's no evidence of intelligence or intelligent design within the evolutionary data, you wanted to change the definition of intelligence.

Since then, our discussion has been about whether or not it's useful to redefine intelligence. You're the one losing sight of the progression of the discussion, not me.

You asked for a clear definition of intelligence

At the time I asked for it, you hadn't defined it.

and argued that the term might be too broad for this discussion.

The term itself is fine. Your attempted redefinition is too broad to be useful. If you need to redefine intelligence for the discussion, then I'm not going to have it with you because I will find the discussion confusing.

I noticed that two key points I raised—fine-tuning of physical laws and the emergence of consciousness—were not directly addressed in your response. These are significant aspects of my argument and deserve discussion.

If you insist.

Fine-Tuning: The precision of physical constants and conditions enabling life is a well-documented phenomenon. How do you interpret this in the context of evolutionary theory? Does it suggest a deeper principle,

No.

I'm not going to make your argument for you. If you have a claim and evidence to go along with it, I'ld love to hear it.

or is it entirely coincidental?

As far as we can tell, yes.

Consciousness: Evolution has led to self-aware beings capable of reflection and abstract thought. This is arguably one of the most remarkable outcomes of evolutionary processes. Do you see this as merely another byproduct of environmental pressures,

Yes.

or might it point to something more?

No.

You suggested that if we expand the definition of intelligence beyond human-like cognition, we need to "come up with a different word." This creates a false dichotomy between rigidly adhering to conventional definitions of intelligence and discarding the term entirely.

Creating a new term is the opposite of the dichotomy that you imagine. If we retain the standard definition of intelligence and you use another word or phrase, then we can discuss both intelligence and your concept at the same time with less danger of confusing or conflating the two.

The broader definitions I propose are not meant to replace the conventional understanding of intelligence but to explore its application in contexts of evolution and natural systems.

Then discussions will be confusing. It will be like a Christian and pantheist trying to have discussions about God.

Can we agree that intelligence might be exhibited in ways that differ from human cognition without losing its meaning entirely?

Yes. You haven't described anything that I would agree is intelligence, but I agree that it's possible and you might yet do so.

You speculated that my reference to "deeper principles" might lead to mysticism, which seems to be an appeal to ignorance

Since that's not an appeal to ignorance and is the third named fallacy that invoked incorrectly, I can only assume that you're pulling these out of your hat.

—dismissing the argument based on assumptions about where it might lead rather than engaging with its content.

Fine. Rephrase what you mean by "deeper principles." Deeper than what? In what nonmystical way?

I have explicitly stated that my perspective does not invoke supernatural forces but aims to integrate observable phenomena with broader philosophical inquiry. Let’s focus on what I’ve actually presented rather than assuming where my argument might go.

What you've presented is extraordinarily open-ended and requires a lot of subjective interpretation on my part before even answering your questions. As I said, I'm not crafting you argument for you. Present a claim and evidence to support it.

You argued that convergent evolution is reducible to ecological pressures and local minima, which provides predictive power. I agree that environmental pressures shape evolution, but the repeated emergence of similar solutions across seemingly unrelated lineages hints at something worth exploring.

Does it? It doesn't to me. Maybe you can change my mind if you can quantify terms like "repeated" and "seemingly unrelated," then explain why those quantities are unlikely to be due to the combination of environmental pressures and chance.

Is it possible that these patterns reflect underlying principles that go beyond the immediate pressures of specific environments?

Sure. It's possible. I see no evidence that they do, but I invite you to share any you have.

If not, why do we see such consistent optimization across these seemingly diverse contexts?

What do you mean by "consistent optimization across these seemingly diverse contexts" and why is whatever you mean unlikely without something beyond environmental pressure and chance?

I’d like to re-emphasize that my perspective is not about discarding evolutionary science but complementing it with a broader framework that includes traits associated with intelligence. I hope we can move past definitional debates and engage more directly with the specific phenomena I’ve highlighted: fine-tuning, emergent complexity, convergence, and consciousness. These are observable, scientifically studied aspects of the natural world that invite deeper inquiry.

That's fine. Formulate an argument and defend it instead of asking rhetorical questions.

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #2]

Does intelligence need to be redefined?

What do you mean by "redefined"? What is the definition of intelligence?

[SiNcE_1985]

Does intelligence need to be redefined?

No, it doesn't.

Next..

[marke]

Does intelligence need to be redefined?

Something needs to be done to fix the intellectual problems of so many like the DEI WOC SCOTUS pick who does not know how to define the term "woman."

[The Barbarian]

Does intelligence need to be redefined?

Something needs to be done to fix the intellectual problems of so many like the DEI WOC SCOTUS pick who does not know how to define the term "woman."

I saw that exchange. It was a republican senator who was unable to say what a woman is. While biology is not the same thing as gender, genetically a woman may be defined as an adult human without a Y chromosome.

I am aware that brains, genes, and anatomy sometimes don't all line up on the same side of gender. Sometimes, it's "fixable." Sometimes, not. People like that deserve our respect and compassion, and the last thing they need is morbid fascination and contempt from others.

[marke]

Does intelligence need to be redefined?

Something needs to be done to fix the intellectual problems of so many like the DEI WOC SCOTUS pick who does not know how to define the term "woman."

I saw that exchange. It was a republican senator who was unable to say what a woman is. While biology is not the same thing as gender, genetically a woman may be defined as an adult human without a Y chromosome.

I am aware that brains, genes, and anatomy sometimes don't all line up on the same side of gender. Sometimes, it's "fixable." Sometimes, not. People like that deserve our respect and compassion, and the last thing they need is morbid fascination and contempt from others.

Before modern democrats forced the public to accept leftist stupidity, there was never any real doubt as to what sex and gender the overwhelming majority of newborn babies were.

[The Barbarian]

Does intelligence need to be redefined?

Something needs to be done to fix the intellectual problems of so many like the DEI WOC SCOTUS pick who does not know how to define the term "woman."

I saw that exchange. It was a republican senator who was unable to say what a woman is. While biology is not the same thing as gender, genetically a woman may be defined as an adult human without a Y chromosome.

I am aware that brains, genes, and anatomy sometimes don't all line up on the same side of gender. Sometimes, it's "fixable." Sometimes, not. People like that deserve our respect and compassion, and the last thing they need is morbid fascination and contempt from others.

Before modern democrats forced the public to accept leftist stupidity, there was never any real doubt as to what sex and gender the overwhelming majority of newborn baby were.

The overwhelming majority, yes. We're talking about the ones for which that's not the case. Being tolerant of others isn't stupidity; it's being a good American.

[marke]

Does intelligence need to be redefined?

Something needs to be done to fix the intellectual problems of so many like the DEI WOC SCOTUS pick who does not know how to define the term "woman."

I saw that exchange. It was a republican senator who was unable to say what a woman is. While biology is not the same thing as gender, genetically a woman may be defined as an adult human without a Y chromosome.

I am aware that brains, genes, and anatomy sometimes don't all line up on the same side of gender. Sometimes, it's "fixable." Sometimes, not. People like that deserve our respect and compassion, and the last thing they need is morbid fascination and contempt from others.

Before modern democrats forced the public to accept leftist stupidity, there was never any real doubt as to what sex and gender the overwhelming majority of newborn baby were.

The overwhelming majority, yes. We're talking about the ones for which that's not the case. Being tolerant of others isn't stupidity; it's being a good American.

Is that what the DEI WOC woke crowd means when they say they cannot define what a woman is? Because of rare conditions of dual sexualities in some they cannot define what a woman is?

[The Barbarian]

Does intelligence need to be redefined?

Something needs to be done to fix the intellectual problems of so many like the DEI WOC SCOTUS pick who does not know how to define the term "woman."

I saw that exchange. It was a republican senator who was unable to say what a woman is. While biology is not the same thing as gender, genetically a woman may be defined as an adult human without a Y chromosome.

I am aware that brains, genes, and anatomy sometimes don't all line up on the same side of gender. Sometimes, it's "fixable." Sometimes, not. People like that deserve our respect and compassion, and the last thing they need is morbid fascination and contempt from others.

Before modern democrats forced the public to accept leftist stupidity, there was never any real doubt as to what sex and gender the overwhelming majority of newborn baby were.

The overwhelming majority, yes. We're talking about the ones for which that's not the case. Being tolerant of others isn't stupidity; it's being a good American.

Is that what the DEI WOC woke crowd means when they say they cannot define what a woman is? Because of rare conditions of dual sexualities in some they cannot define what a woman is?

I just showed you what a woman is genetically. I don't know what "WOC" means, but I'm pretty sure "DEI" doesn't have anything to do with the fact that some people are of uncertain gender. The confusion seems to be mostly on the far right. For example, there is one Olympian, a female boxer, who was born female, is genetically and anatomically female, and identifies as female. She's a woman in every way I can think of. But Donald Trump and other morons insisted that she's a man.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... pic-boxer/

It's not just people on the far right who are gender-confused, but there are a lot of them, like the senator who wanted a Supreme Court nominee to clear up his confusion about what a woman is. Being a biologist, I prefer "adult human without a Y chromosome." But maybe you're like Donald Trump, and find other criteria. Up to you.