I read everyone's thoughts on the subject with interest, but am not directing
this at anyone. I have no desire to debate, or try to change anyone's
beliefs, or call anyone stupid.
Materialists seem to define intelligence as the ability a computer has to
process information. A computer will never originate new information, and if
it should randomly spew out novel patterns, it would never have the ability
to recognize their significance. Creative people tell us they don't know
where their novel ideas came from. Out of the blue. In their sleep.
However, intelligence is required to recognize the significance of a novel
thought, and I see no reason to suspect a computer will ever have such
ability.
Darwinists concept of nature seems to be that life spews out huge amounts of
random novelty, and natural selection is the "intelligence" that does the
creating. That might be a little more credible if such random novelties of
biology developed in isolation. However each organism is a collection of
huge numbers of novelties, both beneficial ones and encumbrances. The
intelligence to recognize the significance of each of the varied novelties
lies within the organism itself. Natural selection can only weed out those
organisms lacking the internal intelligence to optimize their own novelties.
Whatever this ability of an organism to organize and optimize its own
components, it is a form of intelligence common to all life, including the
simplest organisms. It is the opposite of chance, and implies teleology,
IMHO. Although I don't understand the creativity of nature I don't regard it
as supernatural. For me, Intelligent Design describes the process better
than RM&NS, but I would be content to allow everyone their own view of the
matter.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 10 2000 - 15:13:50 EDT