What would be considered intelligence?

[x2world]

Is the ability to learn intelligence? Let's look at some definitions of the word;

"intelligence [n]
1) the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience"

And From Merriam-Webster online;

"Main Entry: in·tel·li·gence
Pronunciation: in-'te-l&-j&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin intelligentia, from intelligent-, intelligens intelligent
1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)"

So by definition, intelligence is the ability to learn, and to apply what is learned.

Quote:True, For those who read the Bible and believe what it says all that can be concluded is that only Earth has life. This is because it only says God created Adam and Eve. It never mentions creating anyone else...except the animals and creatures which it also says abide on on Earth



Based on what the Bible says, yes it can be concluded that life on Earth was created by God, however while it doesn't mention life on other planets, it does not mention there *not* being life on other planets. Absence of proof is not proof of absence, and all that.

This may be for the same reason that the Bible doesn't mention Gravity, Genetics (Okay, a little genetics) and other such things; It wasn't needed at the time. The Bible has a function to be a set of rules, a guidebook of behavior, and as a recording of relevent history. Life on other planets isn't mentioned because there was no reason to mention it, and considering the lack of knowledge man had of other planets at the time, would probably have been confusing. (<--- Personal opinion)

If there is one thing I have learned about the dictionary it is that it is not complete. It will give you a definition of a word but not necessarily a complete definition for a word can have several meanings. A recent example of this just because it is the first thing that comes to mind is when i was looking up the word maturity simply beacause I felt like it it stated its meaning as something that describes a change in age, however, maturity also deals with emotional and moral maturity. These are not listed as definitions of maturity and yet they are apart of what maturity is. How can we assume that there is not more to intelligence?

Creation was something that was relevant and since it did mention the creation of "the heavens" I would personally believe that it would mention other life as well. But simply for the sake of argument assuming that such is not the case then shall we not forget that it has spoken of things which it is unlikely was understood during that era?

[TheEaterofWorlds]

Okay, so, what do you reckon intelligence is if it's not covered by the ability to learn;

"I see that as the ability to learn and how much someone can learn, but is the ability to learn really the only form of intelligence in a human being?"

The different types I covered, and the dictionary? What is it then? I don't know what you're asking anymore. Any answer or definition I give does not work for you. What would satisfy you? If it's not any of this stuff, what do you think it is?

[x2world]

TheEaterofWorlds said:

Okay, so, what do you reckon intelligence is if it's not covered by the ability to learn;

"I see that as the ability to learn and how much someone can learn, but is the ability to learn really the only form of intelligence in a human being?"

The different types I covered, and the dictionary? What is it then? I don't know what you're asking anymore. Any answer or definition I give does not work for you. What would satisfy you? If it's not any of this stuff, what do you think it is?

You covered different types of learning (the different ways someone can learn) and I believe the definition was only an addition to this, but I am seeking the opinions of others.

You want to know what I believe as other types of intelligence besides that of learning?

I believe that self-awareness is not learned and yet it is a form of intelligence. I feel that instincts(sp?) are a form of intelligence that do not need to be learned. I believe that Wisdom is a form of intelligence however it does need to be learned. I feel that creativity is a form of intelligence which is a combination of learning instincts and necessity.

[x2world]

RJ said:

I don't believe there is any life out there either. It just doesn't seem possible to me. *shrug*


As for intelligence in animals, it's pretty hard to find a definate meaning. Some people think that if an animal can solve a puzzle, then it's intelligent. But a worm can solve a simple T maze given the options of an electric shock or some dirt. Does that make the worm intelligent though?

I don't believe there is extraterrestrial life either but I am curious why RJ doesn't think it exists

I would also like to know how it would be decided wether something is intelligent or not. Does it really have to meet every requirement as that of a human being or not

Finally, I want to know what other people believe intelligence is.

[RJ]

Endlesslegend said:

I don't believe there is extraterrestrial life either but I am curious why RJ doesn't think it exists

I would also like to know how it would be decided wether something is intelligent or not. Does it really have to meet every requirement as that of a human being or not

Finally, I want to know what other people believe intelligence is.

I'm a religious person, not exactly the kind you may think, but erm... yeah.

I reckon if an animal has the ability to play then it's intelligent.

[theunorthodox]

Actually, the chances of life exsisting somewhere else in the universe is extremely high. I don't know where everyone's getting their information. Actually, according to researchers (After tons of mathmatical equations and formulating) they came up with this statistic: Once every year, a civilization somewhere in the universe gains the intelligence to realize there could be other worlds with life out there. The only problem is that because of the distance, it's extremely unlikely we'll ever get to chat.

If you think about the sheer size of the universe, you start to realize that the chances of there being another planet with life on it are pretty high. I mean, Earth is one of the small-medium sized planets in a solar system which is huge. Our solar system is smaller than a pinhole when compared to the sheer massiveness of our galaxy. The galaxy is one of thousands, maybe even millions of other galaxies in the giant region of space we call the Universe. We know of many galaxies, some are much much larger than our own. Just think about it; if we're the only living creatures in such a huge place, it's a lot of wasted extra space.

Scientists used to think that the bottom of the ocean was a 'dead zone'. They thought since sunlight couldn't penetrate more than a few hundred feet below the surface of the ocean that life couldn't possibly exsist thousands of feet below. But, in about 1970 (Extremely recent), we discovered hydrothermal vents that houses millions chemosynthetic organisms (Chemosynthetic as opposed to Photosynthetic, because unlike any other creature on the planet, they didn't need sunlight to live.) including crabs, snails, bacteria, some fish, octopus, arthropods, tube worms, and a whole bunch of newly discovered species. Instead of sunlight as their main source of energy, they converted Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) to create a completely new source of energy with Oxygen (O2) as a waste product. This discovery totally wiped out previous thoughts that if the sun were to die out suddenly all life would go with it.

And if that wasn't enough, another completely new ecosystem that didn't rely on the sun *or* hydrothermal vents was discovered in 1990! These were called Cold Seeps. This was another chemosynthetic ecosystem, but instead of using Hydrogen Sulfide as it's main energy source, it used Methane gases (CH4) that seeped from the Earth's crust. Menthnotrophic bacteria line these seeps, which were surrounded by all sorts of creatures. And even more shocking, these seeps were old...really old. In fact, a giant clam from one of them dated to be about 250 years old, which is the oldest living animal ever recorded, I believe.

(Bio major. I gotz kn0wledge )

So if we can still be making discoveries this huge merely a decade ago on our own planet, why is the possibility of life outside our planet so hard to accept? Chemosynthetic organisms already prove that life can exsist without oxygen or sunlight.

(Oh, and we already have proof that life *did* exsist on other planets in bacterial form, as TEOW mentioned.)


As for intelligence, I have a pretty abstract view on it. There are all types of geniuses in this world and with it, all types of intelligence: Mathmatical geniuses, literary, artistic, musical, scientific, philosophical, computer, etc. It goes on. I hate the idea that people limit intelligence simply to standardized government tests like SATs or IQ tests. I think IQ is based only on problem-solving skills, not someone's true intelligence.

And play *is* a sign of intelligence, Endless. The more animals play, the stronger their brains develope.

[TheEaterofWorlds]

The said:

And play *is* a sign of intelligence, Endless. The more animals play, the stronger their brains develope.

^__^ Yay for Bio majors!

Play helps animals to learn social skills and develop skills and reflexes needed to hunt. Play fighting in a cub will one day make way for tests of dominance. In human children it will help them learn patterns, social structure, and help build the imagination.

I mean, sometimes odds make things seem worse then they are. Like if something has a 'one in a billion' chance, it might seem impossible, but there are over five billion people on the planet. Even if the odds for life were small (Which appearantly, they aren't) the universe is just so big that it could still happen several times over.

[x2world]

The said:

Actually, the chances of life exsisting somewhere else in the universe is extremely high. I don't know where everyone's getting their information.

It doesn't matter where they get it. I'm just curious if they *think* it exists or not, however, just saying you do or doen't is not enough. This is because you don't just wake up one day and decide something is such and such a way. There is always something that lead you to draw to that conclusion. By the way, you made a good argument in your post.

Actually, according to researchers (After tons of mathmatical equations and formulating) they came up with this statistic: Once every year, a civilization somewhere in the universe gains the intelligence to realize there could be other worlds with life out there. The only problem is that because of the distance, it's extremely unlikely we'll ever get to chat.

Interesting, although I am curious how they made these mathematical equations

If you think about the sheer size of the universe, you start to realize that the chances of there being another planet with life on it are pretty high. I mean, Earth is one of the small-medium sized planets in a solar system which is huge. Our solar system is smaller than a pinhole when compared to the sheer massiveness of our galaxy.

I believe that our solar system is even smaller than that but a pinhole would be the best comparison

The galaxy is one of thousands, maybe even millions of other galaxies in the giant region of space we call the Universe. We know of many galaxies, some are much much larger than our own. Just think about it; if we're the only living creatures in such a huge place, it's a lot of wasted extra space.

For those who believe what the Bible says it isn't really a lot of wasted space, but other wise it could go either way...it depends on your perspective. For example, it is a lot of wasted space if there is no other life out there, but it isn't a lot of wasted space if you consider it all for our enjoyment or exploration...

Something I found interesting is the fact the areas in that universe scientists used to believe were stars were actually huge clusters of galaxies

Scientists used to think that the bottom of the ocean was a 'dead zone'. They thought since sunlight couldn't penetrate more than a few hundred feet below the surface of the ocean that life couldn't possibly exsist thousands of feet below. But, in about 1970 (Extremely recent), we discovered hydrothermal vents that houses millions chemosynthetic organisms (Chemosynthetic as opposed to Photosynthetic, because unlike any other creature on the planet, they didn't need sunlight to live.) including crabs, snails, bacteria, some fish, octopus, arthropods, tube worms, and a whole bunch of newly discovered species. Instead of sunlight as their main source of energy, they converted Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) to create a completely new source of energy with Oxygen (O2) as a waste product. This discovery totally wiped out previous thoughts that if the sun were to die out suddenly all life would go with it.

And if that wasn't enough, another completely new ecosystem that didn't rely on the sun *or* hydrothermal vents was discovered in 1990! These were called Cold Seeps. This was another chemosynthetic ecosystem, but instead of using Hydrogen Sulfide as it's main energy source, it used Methane gases (CH4) that seeped from the Earth's crust. Menthnotrophic bacteria line these seeps, which were surrounded by all sorts of creatures. And even more shocking, these seeps were old...really old. In fact, a giant clam from one of them dated to be about 250 years old, which is the oldest living animal ever recorded, I believe.

Very interesting! You have a very good point there, but a thought for consideration is the fact that all things are depent on eachother in some way or another (indirectly, directly, or both).

(Bio major. I gotz kn0wledge )

Wow! I am very impressed. This is off topic, but why did you become a bio major...what aspect of it interested you the most?

So if we can still be making discoveries this huge merely a decade ago on our own planet, why is the possibility of life outside our planet so hard to accept? Chemosynthetic organisms already prove that life can exsist without oxygen or sunlight.

(Oh, and we already have proof that life *did* exsist on other planets in bacterial form, as TEOW mentioned.)

That is true, but...isn't it possible that the bacterial life we have found actually came from us? Before landing on the planets we have sent several probes and devices into outerspace which it is pausible may have come off. Another scenario is failed missions where a probe crash landed on a planet and bactera contained on it multipled from there which was possibly carried or spread. Kind of like the bacteria left on the moon that was still alive.

As for intelligence, I have a pretty abstract view on it. There are all types of geniuses in this world and with it, all types of intelligence: Mathmatical geniuses, literary, artistic, musical, scientific, philosophical, computer, etc. It goes on. I hate the idea that people limit intelligence simply to standardized government tests like SATs or IQ tests. I think IQ is based only on problem-solving skills, not someone's true intelligence.

*claps hands in approval and nods in agreement*

And play *is* a sign of intelligence, Endless. The more animals play, the stronger their brains develope.

when did I say play wasn't a sign/form of intelligence?

[TheEaterofWorlds]

Endlesslegend said:

That is true, but...isn't it possible that the bacterial life we have found actually came from us? Before landing on the planets we have sent several probes and devices into outerspace which it is pausible may have come off. Another scenario is failed missions where a probe crash landed on a planet and bactera contained on it multipled from there which was possibly carried or spread. Kind of like the bacteria left on the moon that was still alive.

We knew the bacteria on the Moon came from us because it is an Earth variety, because it was only in areas we had been, and because at the time it was left the possibility of contamination was known.

Firstly, the bacteria from Mars was not alive, it was a fossilized record of ancient bacteria that no longer live, and it was fossilized in rocks from Mars. I'm not sure how farmiliar you are with the process of fossilization, but it takes a good long time. This Bacteria is obviously older than our space program.

Secondly, if it did come from Earth, we would have recognised it. You can look at E-Coli and know what it is, and other such things, because they have certain shapes. We could match it up with an Earth species.

While it is true that undiscovered microscopic life exists, if it was at Cape Canaveral or some such place, it would probably be a common variety. So anything that went up with a probe would be something common to the area the probe was launched from.

To say that we don't recognise it because it has 'evolved'. I will repeat that it is a long dead strain, with a rather primitive sort of structure. To suggest it evolved from one of our organism, it would be more advanced. These fossils show organisms *less* advanced then our modern microscopic organisms.

Some of these samples were I believe from a meteorite that fell to Earth. The scientists responsible did many experiments to make sure there wasn't a possibility that the sample had been contaminated on the way down by Earth organisms. (I had the expirement explained to me, but I can't remember it exactly and I don't have the link. However, it was done in a controled enviroment with a control group and a variable group. I don't think the validity of the tests are in question.)

These fossil bacteria date from the time period where it was believed that Mars had liquid water on it's surface.

[x2world]

TheEaterofWorlds said:

We knew the bacteria on the Moon came from us because it is an Earth variety, because it was only in areas we had been, and because at the time it was left the possibility of contamination was known.

Firstly, the bacteria from Mars was not alive, it was a fossilized record of ancient bacteria that no longer live, and it was fossilized in rocks from Mars. I'm not sure how farmiliar you are with the process of fossilization, but it takes a good long time. This Bacteria is obviously older than our space program.

Secondly, if it did come from Earth, we would have recognised it. You can look at E-Coli and know what it is, and other such things, because they have certain shapes. We could match it up with an Earth species.

While it is true that undiscovered microscopic life exists, if it was at Cape Canaveral or some such place, it would probably be a common variety. So anything that went up with a probe would be something common to the area the probe was launched from.

To say that we don't recognise it because it has 'evolved'. I will repeat that it is a long dead strain, with a rather primitive sort of structure. To suggest it evolved from one of our organism, it would be more advanced. These fossils show organisms *less* advanced then our modern microscopic organisms.

Some of these samples were I believe from a meteorite that fell to Earth. The scientists responsible did many experiments to make sure there wasn't a possibility that the sample had been contaminated on the way down by Earth organisms. (I had the expirement explained to me, but I can't remember it exactly and I don't have the link. However, it was done in a controled enviroment with a control group and a variable group. I don't think the validity of the tests are in question.)

These fossil bacteria date from the time period where it was believed that Mars had liquid water on it's surface.

Interesting...
I am familiar with the process of fossilization and as I said it was a guess/hypothesis that I developed off the information posted thus far. I don't really believe in anything evolving but I do believe in things mutating.

So if you had not mentioned the fact that they were fossilized I would consider they were simply mutated. The problem with that guess would be that I know next to nothing about the mutations of bacteria...what would change and what would remain the same.

Finally, I am reaching to the edges of my memory, but I believe i recall hearing about things that have fossilized in a short period of time. I don't remember what the exact conditions would have to be, but isn't it possible that these conditions may have been met?

I speak with a naive tongue but I hope someone will be able to clarify the possibility of this.

[TheEaterofWorlds]

Even if they had fossilized quite quickly, it still wouldn't change anything. Considering that these probably existed at a time when Mars had water on the surface, quickly or slowly formed, the fossils were likely formed a very, very long time ago.

[x2world]

okay...

[theunorthodox]

Endlesslegend said:

Interesting, although I am curious how they made these mathematical equations

I'm not positive how, but it had to do with the ratios of our planets and how long our developement took and the hypothetical ratios that we believe lead to our own evolution. Again, it's a very sketchy equation, but they wouldn't say this stuff unless they had serious reasoning behind it. I can believe it.

I believe that our solar system is even smaller than that but a pinhole would be the best comparison

I did say it is smaller than a pinhole. I guess I could've said smaller than a quark, but not many people would've understood that termanology.

For those who believe what the Bible says it isn't really a lot of wasted space, but other wise it could go either way...it depends on your perspective. For example, it is a lot of wasted space if there is no other life out there, but it isn't a lot of wasted space if you consider it all for our enjoyment or exploration...

Beh. I'd much rather not think of the universe as mankind's playground. And considering that it's unlikely we'll ever be able to explore planets beyond our own solar system (Unless we discover a way to make ourselves live longer, since with our current technological level of speed, it takes us about four years to get to Mars [imagine a four-year road trip with no breaks. x.x] through space probes. We still haven't figured out ways to ration food, water, and oxygen for that long), I'd consider it a huge waste if there wasn't anything else out there.

Very interesting! You have a very good point there, but a thought for consideration is the fact that all things are depent on eachother in some way or another (indirectly, directly, or both).

Indeed, which is the beauty of the systems. If we were to find planets that produce methane gases or have large concentrations of Hydrogen Sulfide, it could be the start of something. We've already predicted how creatures could possibly evolve in the future and which ones might take our place as the dominant specie.

Wow! I am very impressed. This is off topic, but why did you become a bio major...what aspect of it interested you the most?

Well I'm majoring in Bio. I haven't actually majored in it yet. The reason? Simply because I find life and everything about it facinating.

That is true, but...isn't it possible that the bacterial life we have found actually came from us? Before landing on the planets we have sent several probes and devices into outerspace which it is pausible may have come off. Another scenario is failed missions where a probe crash landed on a planet and bactera contained on it multipled from there which was possibly carried or spread. Kind of like the bacteria left on the moon that was still alive.

Yes, it's a possibility, but like TEOW said, our Scientists have been studying our own bacteria long enough to know if it came from us or not. And since bacteria mutates at a rapid rate, we could never know if it actually came from us or not. But since we have evidence of planets with water we can infer that life can exsist in bacterial form there...or could exsist one day.

when did I say play wasn't a sign/form of intelligence?

Oh, you didn't. I was simply reitterating. ^^;



I like your inquisitivity.

[TheEaterofWorlds]

I agree, this is pretty fun. Asking wild questions can get surprising answers. I'm sorry if I ever come across as snappy or anything.

My best friend is studying Geology and Biology (With a strong leaning towards Marine Biology) She's also big into palentology (sp?) I'm always amazed by the amount of things she can remember. How do you Bio people fit it all into your head? ^_~

Something I find really neat are the ecosystems that don't require any photosynthesis, not even by products of it. Those little critters in the Basalt, I think they were...

Edit: Yup. I dug up some articles from an older post of mine;

An ecosystem without photosynthesis?!
www.spaceref.com/redirect.ref?url=www.pnl.gov/news/1995/95-23.htm&id=2415
"Two researchers from the Pacific Northwest Laboratory have discovered a microbial ecosystem that is not dependent on photosynthesis. These microbes appear to thrive on chemical energy in basalt, a rock common to Earth and Mars"

3. Ancient amber-trapped bacteria.. revived?! Asymmetrical cell devision?!
www.spaceref.com/redirect.ref?url=whyfiles.news.wisc.edu/008amber/molec_bio.html&id=2394
"Raul Cano, a California Polytechnic State University microbiologist says he has succeeded in reviving dormant bacteria from ancient bees. The bacteria apparently survived as spores inside the gut of a bee from amber found in the Dominican Republic"

The really cool part (to me) is the possible discovery of a new model of cell division. It's never been seen before! It looks sort of like a tennis ball.

[x2world]

TheEaterofWorlds said:

I agree, this is pretty fun. Asking wild questions can get surprising answers. I'm sorry if I ever come across as snappy or anything.

My best friend is studying Geology and Biology (With a strong leaning towards Marine Biology) She's also big into palentology (sp?) I'm always amazed by the amount of things she can remember. How do you Bio people fit it all into your head? ^_~

Something I find really neat are the ecosystems that don't require any photosynthesis, not even by products of it. Those little critters in the Basalt, I think they were...

Edit: Yup. I dug up some articles from an older post of mine;

An ecosystem without photosynthesis?!
www.spaceref.com/redirect.ref?url=www.pnl.gov/news/1995/95-23.htm&id=2415
"Two researchers from the Pacific Northwest Laboratory have discovered a microbial ecosystem that is not dependent on photosynthesis. These microbes appear to thrive on chemical energy in basalt, a rock common to Earth and Mars"

3. Ancient amber-trapped bacteria.. revived?! Asymmetrical cell devision?!
www.spaceref.com/redirect.ref?url=whyfiles.news.wisc.edu/008amber/molec_bio.html&id=2394
"Raul Cano, a California Polytechnic State University microbiologist says he has succeeded in reviving dormant bacteria from ancient bees. The bacteria apparently survived as spores inside the gut of a bee from amber found in the Dominican Republic"

The really cool part (to me) is the possible discovery of a new model of cell division. It's never been seen before! It looks sort of like a tennis ball.

Amazing, When I started this posted I had planned on learning several new things but...I never expected the amount and variety I have received. Yes you did sound a little bit touchy early on when you asked what I was looking for.