But you cannot judge intelligence by the human model. Many things are intelligent, just in different ways. We don't even understand how human intelligence works so how can you claim nothing else is intelligent?Quote:
Originally Posted by Harok
Printable View
But you cannot judge intelligence by the human model. Many things are intelligent, just in different ways. We don't even understand how human intelligence works so how can you claim nothing else is intelligent?Quote:
Originally Posted by Harok
well, define intelligence Abracax.
Please show me where I claimed nothing else is intelligent besides humans.
I would say there are many animals like dogs that are just as intelligent as some of the people I have met. Those dogs do their "business" on the grass without thinking twice about what the grass thinks about it. :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bro_Matt
Thats exactly what I am saying, we do not fully understand what actually constitutes intelligence, so therefore we cannot define it.
Harok, how do you know the dog isn't as arrogant as humans and believes it is the smartest creature on this planet, and thinks we are stupid and nothing else is intelligent?
We don't know, because we cannot communicate with them. At one point it was surmised that if something can communicate it has to have intelligence to do so. That communication is a form of intelligence and not an instinctual thing.
So therefore, since plants can communicate with each other in many different ways, would that not constitute some form of intelligence?
Abstract thread
So your arguement comes down to intelligence can't be defined. Trees communicate (links to articles would be great the few I have seen all appear to talk about trees reacting to a stimulus) so therefore they have some form of intelligence which you just said can't be defined. If you refuse to define intelligence how in the world would we ever prove trees aren't it?
For example -
I would like to annouce that trees are skilapitational.
Skilapitational is a word that I just made up so it can't be defined.
Please prove that trees are not skilapitational.
Trees sometimes have skills or aptitudes, thus, they are skilapitational. ((Sounds like skills and aptitudes plus another word that means something, thus...:D))
*sigh, this is getting know where.
I know what you mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bro_Matt
Maybe I should just admit they have plantelligence. Just as long as we all agree they are also skilapitational. ;)
ill be back on to tomorrow with a good answer, just dont let this thread get closed people. The Christian religion solves and answers many things.