Without intelligence, would life exist?
Some say intelligence is only the outcome or the sum. Also that intelligence isn't needed, life simply responds and forms by natural unconscious mechanics in response to a stimulus.
Without intelligence, how does simple life recognize, memorize, and respond to stimulus? Without intelligence, why would anything get stimulated?
What is your definition of intelligence.
What is it in its basic form.
Thanks. I think the basic would be awareness and memory. Have any others?
To answer the question as to wether we can live without it I'd say no. Absolutely not.
Inteligence at its basic form is the ability to destinguish the difference between memories that were stored yesterday and the days before that, from the memories that were stored seconds ago.
Putting all of those memories in proper prospective and deciding upon a proper reaction to that which is expected to occur in the next few seconds.
All other inteligence grows from this.
But that is just my opinion but what do I know
These are elements of what is considered consciousness. The 'ness' being the object. So intellect at its core who be something else, in which the 'ness' is able to exist, be or do.
1. "It is not necessary to consider a question, nor an answer. Both are equal parallels of the need to know- the 'ness'."
2. "Where = What." - The equation is balanced. The answer is the question.
Intellect itself is not effected by the 'ness'. Yet, the 'ness' requires intelligence to exist. Same as Choice needs Free Will to exist, but Free Will does not need Choice.
Some suggest Intel is void of action or needed action. not that it is complacent, but rather full or satisfied.
A chemical process in the brain which is pre-determined to some degree by the amount of chemical present?
Some female animals who need to care for their young for a long time have a different chemical structure in the brain.
Animals that do not need to care for their young as much have less of this chemical present in that part of the brain.
Women when pregnant get self-zapped with the "caring chemical"
Thanks. I agree the chemical present is pre-determined to some extent. But can't the choice in changing thinking literally change the amount of chemicals and connections?
Can't the female that has the caring chemical change thinking into a female that is careless? I think this gives evidence that choice can power over instinct.
Intelligence is merely one of many branches of evolution a species can follow or not. You can ask if a snake can exist with arms and legs, too. Same thing.
I think you need to define intelligence. From your introduction you seem to think plants and bacteria have it. Which makes your question a bit of a tautology.
We can observe many organisms who we would not necessarily deem "intelligent" who seem to do just fine.
Intelligence? It's so simple!
Intelligence is the ability to utilize all the wisdom gained in life to LIVE (exist) for as long as ones genetic programming will allow.
Isn't the "GOAL" of all life to survive?
What else could "intelligence" be than that facet of life which insures the genetic viability of all life?
So you are saying that we are not born with intelligence?
Are you saying that there are no signs of intelligence until we utilize wisdom that we have learn in our journey through life.
When does intelligence first show itself and how?
You could describe all of Einsteins attributes.
We could describe how a chicken protects its young
or how squirrel runs from a cat.
But that wouldn't be a basic definition of what intelligence IS.
"Intelligence is the ability to utilize all the wisdom gained in life to LIVE (exist) for as long as ones genetic programming will allow."
?? So, by your definition tiger who is running after his pray is intelligent? He is wonderfully programmed to catch you in 5 minutes and tear apart in a flash!
No, human intelligence allows us not to yield to our animal instincts and to behave like a sociable human not a wild beast.
There are many levels and degrees of Intelligence.
I was speaking of intelligence at its most basic form.
The place from which it began. Its origin so to speak.
Intelligence in most basic form is when you are not hitting your neighbour on the street just because he told you that you are an ass h***!
...lolol and you totally either misread, misunderstood or both my definition of the word..."intelligence." I defined it so,grammatically, perfectly.
I didn't notice the eliquence, I go back and see if I can find it.
Jerami: first, ok, define "eliquence" for me. Once ya do that we can chat...lolol
You are a trip! lmsao
Thanks. I have enjoyed all the answers. I would like to discuss instinct.
Is instinct possible without intelligence? Some say instinct is simply the unconscious genetic program. Could a person program a computer to follow and memorize specific functions without memory and intelligence? Does memory allow intelligence or does intelligence allow memory?
TruthDebater, Good question
My thoughts are that memory is the substance from which intelligence springs forth when memory is categorized.
I think that instinct is a product of this as well, though not being aware of from where it comes.
A newborn deer is born with some of these instincts.
Therefore we must assume that some knowledge is passed on genetically or, that knowledge is passed on in some telepathic manner while still in the womb.
Sometimes we can do little more than to make assumptions.
Thanks. I agree much is passed on genetically, I don't know about the telepathy. As for the instinct, I agree and think it comes from a working memory. As for the genetic program, it seems this is based on memory.
Without intelligence, would the genetic program simply be fixed memory or working memory? I think working memory because the instinct can change or be reprogrammed through observation or change of behaviors. If it wasn't working memory, how would instinct evolve to different levels of awareness if there was a fixed memory?
I think we both agree that memory and intelligence benefit one another, no matter which comes first. Even if there is genetic fixed memory "without intelligence", how would there be "working memory" without intelligence or awareness to learn and change instinct?
I think that we are on the same wave link on this one.
I think that the basic instinct/memory remains in its original form. BUT when things happen that are not quite the same as is expected as it pertains to memory, these NEW instincts are only tagged upon the basic. With the passage of time they soon become integrated into its "basic" form; when it comes time to be passed on to the next generation.
As regarding the concept of "telepathy" while still in the womb. I think this would have something to do with the idea of matter retaining memory. Such as psychics testify.
These "telepathic' memories would be carried by the matter substance such as the blood stream.
Just a hunch?? or speculation?
Thanks. My main question is about instinct being called unconscious. Why is it referred to as unconscious when it can be learned and programmed by conscious or subconscious observation? How is anything new learned and memorized without intelligence and awareness?
Your telepathy reminded me of studies I heard of infants in the womb picking up what goes on outside the womb and learning. We have muscle and cell memory, I don't know why memories in the blood stream would be impossible.
Excuse the delay.. I multitask quite often..
I think it a misconception to call instinct as unconscious.
Maybe just under the surface of our normal awareness that is required for us to perform daily activities.
Instinct is "Kinda like" an automatic pilot that is on standby, ready to completely take over in emergency situations.
Our intellect has learned to override this program. Sometimes on a permanently basis. Then we become unaware of its existence ..
In which case it is still there... but deactivated to some degree. as is the case for other areas of our brain activities.
Thanks. I agree with you. Darwin in "Origin of Species" continually calls instinct and other actions unconscious, do you think this is why so many others wrongly refer to things as unconscious when they are conscious or subconscious?
I liked how you used "unaware" of it's existence rather than "unconscious", I think unaware is the proper term.
Is it only us that can override the subconscious or is it all life? If simple life couldn't override instinct/subconscious, how would the life vary or choose new direction? If by mutation, possibly the mutation was caused by the parents conscious or subconscious changes of their instinct?
Darwin in "Origin of Species" continually calls instinct and other actions unconscious, do you think this is why so many others wrongly refer to things as unconscious when they are conscious or subconscious?
Is it only us that can override the subconscious or is it all life?
I'm back.... I think that in most cases it in an unconcious act of wrongly expressing what they are thinking.Or didn't take the time to fully consider their statement. Sometimes they just learned it wrong and sinse they were taught it, they will defend that belief to the extreme.
but I could be wrong.
Other statement... On the basic level I think that all life that is said to have has "maternal instinsts" has this ability.
Sinse a mother squirred will not face down a cat, (or any other advisary) in its efforts to protect its young, I would say that it does not have the "over ride" capability.
The ordinary houe cat on the otherhand standing its ground agaist much larger foes facing almont ecertain defeat does have this overide capability.
As to this having any relationship with the evolution of thought ??? I am pretty sure that this capability would have to be achieved, but not necessarily.
I"M NOT SURE (mercy me)
we can be really inteligent and still clinging to our mothers aprin strings. So I don't know.
Thanks. I feel the same way of it being lack of awareness in misusage of the word. I also notice that many die hard evolutionists often use the word ignorant and call others ignorant. Darwin also uses and often refers to humans as ignorant. Do you think this plays a part on followers using and calling people ignorant so often? I also agree on die hard believers defending it to the extreme, anything written that isn't already scripted by science will be attacked and ridiculed most often in defense, even if it doesn't contradict the belief.
I don't know about the squirrel being able to override instinct in maternal aspect, but why not? Their present instincts must have formerly overridden their past instinct to act and know what they do today. For that to have happened, new thoughts and actions programmed the new instinct?
Marine - ignorance is just a lack of knowledge about something. Clearly you are ignorant of the evolutionary process. This is not an insult, just a statement of fact.
Which book was it you said you had bought again? Did you ever bother reading it?
Thanks Cagsil. I have made it a point to respond to those only looking for meaningful conversation rather than controversy. Thanks for the past entertainment, but I have gotten bored.
Ah - very religious - attack by accusing me of doing what you are doing.
Did not read the book then?
Thanks. If you would like to debate evolution on another thread and feel you can have manners without your mechanical usage of calling others ignorant with garbage beliefs, feel free to start the thread and I will talk about any point of evolution that you like. The first off topic assumption or circular meaningless argument will be my last response. Thanks.
One more question I have. If instinct is simply known/said by many as determined by unconscious genetics, how does instinct learn and change by conscious or subconscious observation? If everything is previously determined by the genetics, how is there conscious choices that can change the program?
You answered your own question. Everything is energy at its core, including thoughts. Strong emotionally charged thoughts held in consciousness and repeated repetitively gradually change the structure of DNA over time. This is how life adapts and evolves. Instinct is not permanently set. It is influenced by the ability to understand cause and effect through conscious observation.
Thanks, I enjoyed your ideas. I think I agree with you. If we are correct, how do you think this changes evolution from the Darwin unconscious evolution presently known?
speciation is unconscious and it has nothing to do with instinct.
Thanks. Possibly natural selection "what nature allows" plays the overrall role, but to say life's instinct or choices are unconscious acts I think is a mistake. I think speciation is an excellent example of life rewriting the program. Before animals could fly, it is believed they glided. Why would an animal glide without instinct unless it was a conscious choice to change the program? If you believe animals began gliding and flying to escape prey, why couldn't it have been new based on old instinct to begin flight?
Why do you think this?
Why do you think proven scientific facts are a mistake?
What makes you say speciation is an excellent example of life rewriting the program?
Please define life.
Please define consciousness.
Why would an animal not glide if that is what it had evolved to do?
What makes you assume old instincts or what you mean by new instincts is the older not newer.
Why do you prefer to use incorrect meanings of words?
Why do you think natural selection is not natural?
How do you know that life's choices are a mistake?
What is your point here?
Why did you drop the Marine persona?
Who believes animals glided before they could fly?
Why would they believe that and jump to the conclusion that this needs intelligence?
Intelligence means to know basic of something.Intelligence comes by experience
What *You* think, and what facts are pointing is poles apart.
There does not seem to be much freedom from brain chemicals in humans, and hardly any for many animals, thus it is chemically programmed behaviour that dominates their instincts and thereby their nature.
Humans know how to make slow and fast adjustments to some brain related chemicals, and both humans and other animals can uptake adrenalin quickly.
The brain chemicals in man can be adjusted with activity. For example serotonin capacity is increased with exercise thus exercise has the ability to make us feel happier.
The ability for thinking to adjust using chemicals is a known as well.
Modern life appears to contribute to tension and stress to a degree which reduces serotonin causing depression and many tests have been carried out on this as well.
MDA and MMDA induced into the blood stream will cross the BBB and allow a surge of serotonin activity.
Enough serotonin creates clarity of thought without fear creating real peace and good will to others and especially self worth.
Marijuana has it's own neural pathways in the body and effects dopamine mostly, which in turn raises mood and modifies motivation.
We do not seem to have much power over our instinct at least in the short term.
The much feared GHB aka GBH is one chemical that holds great hope for changing brain chemistry through thinking.
Naturally all chemicals, even the ones our own body produces need to be in balance.
Depression and low access to serotonin are bed partners.
I hope this helps to explain some of it, otherwise I can point you to all the double blinds and testing.
Thanks. I agree with a lot of what you wrote, seems you have this researched pretty well. Since we know about the brain chemicals, we are aware of them. With awareness of them, we gain more control over them.
As for other animals, I agree they aren't aware as us and have less power of choice. But I think they do still have choice over instinct at times. If an animals instinct tells it where to find food and the food runs out, the animal must choose to look elsewhere for food or die. I think instinct only works so far without choice.
What do you mean not much power of instinct in the short term?
I think instinct is repetitive or patterned thought where learning new skills is done by choice. Then the new choices if repetitive may become new instinct.
Thank you, Mr. Spock. Thought the blue eyes were too good to be true. Intelligence comes in many forms, and in degrees. That which was considered to exist without it, has been found to be quite intelligent, our concept needs to be ever evolving. Live long and prosper.
I agree, it is exciting to contemplate that awareness can provoke changes.
The magic of knowing seems to throw a switch in the brain. Like a little man in your head who would love to help is reaching out to the conscious mind and simply needed to know where to start work.
By short term, I mean that this may be changing. Despite the constraints caused by the hysteria around drugs, we are making steady progress towards a drug that can cause long term changes is brain chemistry that has little or no negative feedback mechanism.
GHB is one such drug that is interesting in this way, as taken in the right amount it has only one side effect other than deep peaceful sleep, and that is the user will wake up feeling fantastic, and in some cases remains that way for days weeks or even permanently if that person had a neurosis that was causing unhappiness.
The problem with GHB is not the GHB in itself. If taken with alcohol it can result in death, so it certainly is dangerous in the hands of the kids who are supposed to have died from taking GHB who were also chocka with grog.
There are many scientists and academics who have a real understanding of drugs or chemicals and their effects on the brain. I find it fascinating and have gigabytes of it on file.
Thanks. Besides the medication, I think seeing a psychiatrist or counselor would also be effective in creating more awareness. Have you studied neuro plasticity? It sounds fun.
I have had a peak at the concept and have 6 years of psychotherapy under the belt.
Psychology gets a vote from me. I got to study religion (again!) and Greek mythology as well. I do think finding the right therapist is still an issue.
Many who take on this very responsible work are narcissistically cathected individuals who try sub-consciously to create mini-me's!
Thanks. I think it would be or is interesting when a person seeing the psychiatrist may have more awareness than the psychiatrist. If this was the case, the patient could or would sense when the psychiatrist is using subconscious bias. I agree with you, I could imagine it pretty common for a psychiatrist in attempting to have someone believe as them when most everyone else does it. lol
And it would seem those who are emotionally attached through their ego. ( shorthand) are often the most successful, such as some pop psychologists on television.
Another problem, and one I have had with my psychologist, is a completely opposed personality with different core values.
My talented therapist was able to deal with this by having lots of debriefings with an associate, a sure sign of a professional.
A therapist needs to be able to keep his own counsel without projecting it into the therapy. Not easy when the patient has a totally different view than him on most things in life!
Thanks. I don't know if I agree on success. What is success, the most money, the most publicity, popularity, fame, happiness? I do agree that most of the ones that get the most publicity have the biggest ego lol.
I can see your point on different core values. If you went to a psychologist that was religiously biased and tried to push their views on you, I could see the problem. Is this an example of what you are talking about?
I don't understand what you mean by debriefings? Feedback on the overall session or progress?
I put that poorly. I mean to say that they are viewed by many as successful.
Relgion would be a big one. I was thinking more of differing socio-economic values and life experiences that were not understood.
The debriefing as I call it, is when a psychotherapist gets feedback on the session with the intention of assisting the therapist to discern the session as such and not bolt it on to his own life.
It's a pretty powerful thing to expose yourself to another persons stuff.
Good therapy seems to effect the therapist as well as the patient, and this needs to be dealt with also.
Thanks for explaining. I think there would be a hard line to keep as a therapist between showing empathy in attempts to view and feel what the patient is feeling, and at the same time keeping themselves separated as to not be negatively effected by the patient.
If the thoughts are energy before chemicals, would this mean they are never destroyed, only transferred?
Life gives man so much more awareness of self than the animal world for instance , and we use it so poorly. Are we lucky ....or are we cursed to not just live within the given moments of existance?
What is the outcome? Life does require intelligence to form or intelligence is simply the end result?
Neither. Intelligence is just another branch of evolution, like any other evolutionary trait.
Thanks. How do you know intelligence didn't come before evolution?
Because, the cart does not come before the horse.
Thanks. If you don't know the origin of the horse or the cart, how do you know which came first? I understand you or no one else knows the origin of life, so would this also make it impossible to know the origin of intelligence? If we don't know how life began, how can we know when intelligence began?
Sorry, but I think you are only speaking for yourself.
Thanks. I now see you aren't really looking for conversation, rather controversy or perhaps you would provide more thoughtful answers rather than one liners. Which part btw, origin of life or origin of intelligence? Who knows how they began and how do you know intelligence wasn't required for life to begin?
IMO since there are many types of intelligenc I believe it is simply a matter of focusing on the one that means most to the person. Artificial Intelligence, Existential Intelligence,Logical-Mathematical Intelligence etc.
One Intelligence for instance is a type of intelligence called Emotional Intelligence, but should rather be viewed as the application intelligence to emotions (which is just another domain of life).
The concept has also been attacked for failing to have any predictive value of common outcomes, specifically success in work and academics. In some studies, it has been found there is a positive relationship between Emotional Intelligence and job/academic performance, in others, no relationship was found to be conclusive when studied by researchers such as Daniel Goleman,Peter Salovey and John D. Mayer.
Thanks. I am meaning the root of intelligence, sorry for not specifying. The root I think for intelligence is awareness and memory, I think these are the basics for intelligence. My question is mainly, can life form and evolve without a basic intelligence of awareness and memory? If intelligence is not consciousness/awareness and memory, why isn't it?
One example of how man has attempted to explain intelligence. Was a test done in the 50's
The test considers a list of things intelligent beings must be able to do:
Have a sense of humor
Tell right from wrong
Fall in love
Enjoy strawberries and cream
Make someone fall in love with one
Learn from experience
Use words properly,be the subject of one's own thoughts
Have as much diversity of behavior as a man
Think of something really new.
However should we suppose that there must be something deficient about a creature that does not enjoy—or that is not able to enjoy—strawberries and cream?
True enough, we might suppose that an intelligent creature ought to have the capacity to enjoy some kinds of things—but it seems unduly chauvinistic to insist that intelligent creatures must be able to enjoy just the kinds of things that we do. (No doubt, similar considerations apply to the claim that an intelligent creature must be the kind of thing that can make a human being fall in love with it. Yes, perhaps, an intelligent creature should be the kind of thing that can love and be loved; but what is so special about us?
Thanks. What about instinct? Do you think instinct is possible without intelligence? If so, how?
I don't know what sensations other lifeforms have or how they view certain stimulus, but I like the question. I think any life stimulated must have stimulated thoughts to recognize a stimulating reward. When we call the stimulus of simple life unconscious, I think this is incorrect. I think for life to be drawn to stimulus, the life would have to have awareness, instinct/memory, and intelligence. I think awareness and intelligence go together because a person or thing cannot be intelligent of another object unless it is aware or conscious of the other object.
What is so special about us? I don't have the golden answer, everyone will likely have a different subjective answer to the question. But one thing I do view is fact is our ability of awareness and flexibility that no other life has. I don't think any life besides humans can become aware of as many different things about life that we can.
The world we know is smaller and less understood than you think, we assume we have the ultimate intelligence , we may not , we know about 5 percent of anything to do with intelligence at best, for instance , what do we know of the paranormal , nothing , of animal intelligence , nothing much , other universes , nothing . We are nothing special, we just think we are .
Some of us decrepit old folks ,,,, figured that out decades ago !!! Ain't none of us really worth diddle sq- --
All of them hormones makes us think that we know moe than we do.
Trust me, you will some day be telling them young folks this one day???
I think the universe can be seen two different ways. It could be seen as how small we are such as ants in an infinite universe, or it could be seen as how important we are considering how small the chances are of other planets with complex life. The chances are even smaller finding another civilization that has the capabilities of reading, writing, and speaking. I think being an ant when ants are so rare in the universe could be seen as special. I think we could be the rarest creation of the universe. Besides that, I do agree we still have a lot to learn.
by sibtain bukhari4 years ago
"The genetic code is a set of instructions and information""The set of instructions and information is intelligence""therefore genetic code is intelligence""All living things are...
by moonlake18 months ago
We were in line at the grocery store and the lady in front of us in one of the motorized carts, had maybe $40. worth of groceries. Her card wouldn't go though and she said she thought it had money in it, maybe it...
by Randy Godwin5 years ago
Since Vector7 has apparently succeeded in creating a forum thread forbidding anyone who wishes to disagree with the topic to post--some posts have been removed already-- i thought I'd try and do the same here. ...
by qwark7 years ago
Humankind is at the "brink" of self destruction.To 'survive" as a species it must "adapt." Adaptation is Natures prime law for imminent success.Will our genetic programming for predation...
by marinealways247 years ago
In your own words without quoting religious text or quoting atheist text, what are the main points that rule life being intelligent or ignorant?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.