🚀 go-pugleaf

To my question:

>> What is the minimal amount of simultaneous knowledge 
>> and learning necessary to qualify
>> for "intelligent behaviour?"


martin.b.brilliant writes:

>I ask whether the system of evolution, that is, 
>the origin of species by variation and natural selection, is
>intelligent.  I claim that there is a sense in which it is.  

   I agree.  Certainly this is among the many wondrous things
   which persuade people to consider the possibility of intelligence 
   greater than our own.  
 
>It builds
>generalization on generalization, and innovation on innovation.  It
>does not forget useful things, but it rejects mistakes.  On the other
>side, it does not remember mistakes so as to avoid making them again;
>would that disqualify its claim to intelligence?  Does that make it
>"adaptive" as distinct from "intelligent?"


   Evolution may be intelligent, by some definitions of
   the term.  But, it is not a lifeform, it is not embodied 
   within a living thing, 'it' is a process larger than all of us.

   The changes due to evolution may only be called
   "adaptation" since the plasticity of such changes
   is over generations, not within one lifetime.
   I would limit "intelligence" in living things to those
   which can learn within the span of a lifetime.

   If we are not so egotistical (or bound by religious belief)
   to believe we humans are the  only intelligent life on earth,
   and, if we agree that evolution is the reason for life on earth,
   (Then,) to merge your question with mine (By recombinant splicing) 
   results in:

   When is it possible for evolution to form structures 
   which are plastic enough to allow adaptation within
   one lifetime?  And then, when does such adaptation qualify
   for "intelligence?"