On 21 Sep, 18:10, Rex Allen <rexallen31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What is the significance of intelligence in a universe with
> deterministic laws?
> Your performance on any IQ test is not due to your possessing some
> property called "intelligence", but rather is an inevitable outcome of
> the universe's initial conditions and governing causal laws.

it is of course both

> The questions you are asked, the answers you give, the problems you
> are presented with, the solutions you develop - these were all
> implicit in the universe's first instant.
> You, and the rest of the universe, are essentially "on rails".  The
> unfolding of events and your experience of them is dictated by the
> deterministic causal laws.
> Even if time flows (e.g. presentism), the causal structure of the
> universe is static...events can only transpire one way.
> So, what can be said of intelligence in such a universe?  Well...only
> what the deterministic laws require you to say about it.  What can be
> believed about intelligence in such a universe?  Obviously only what
> the deterministic laws require you to believe.

yep. and it's still nintelligence, just as a
deterministically falling stone is still falling

> Solving a problem correctly is no more impressive or significant than
> rain falling "correctly".  You answer the question in the only way the
> deterministic laws allow.  The rain falls in the only way that the
> deterministic laws allow.

so your actual conclusion is not that intelligence isn't
intelligence, but that intelligence isn't an achivement

> The word "intelligence" doesn't refer to anything except the
> experiential requirements that the universe places on you as a
> consequence of its causal structure.
> =*=
> What about the significance of intelligence in a universe with
> probabilistic laws?
> The only change from the deterministic case is that the course of
> events isn't precisely predictable, even in principle.
> However, the flow of events is still governed by the probabilistic
> causal laws.  Which just means that to the extent that the flow of
> events isn't determined, it's random.
> Again, the analogy with poker comes to mind:  the rules of poker are
> stable and unchanging, while the randomness of the shuffle adds an
> element of unpredictability as to which cards you are actually dealt.
> So, to the extent that poker isn't determined, it's random.
> The questions you're going to be asked and the problems you're going
> to be presented with in a probabilistic universe aren't
> predictable...but neither are your answers or your solutions, which
> result from the exact same underlying rule set.  Again, to the extent
> that any of these things aren't determined, they're random.
> Adding a random component to an otherwise deterministic framework does
> increase the number of possible states that are reachable from a given
> initial condition, but it doesn't add anything qualitatively new to
> the content of those states or to the process as a whole.  Nothing new
> is added to the deterministic case that would give the word
> "intelligence" anything extra to refer to.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to