[AntonioLao]

the technological application of the TOE is a working controlled thermonuclear fusion engine a quadrillion times more effective than the one of ITER.

[JAK]

Originally Posted by force5 antonio; Is the desire to communicate an indication of ones intelligence? I would say in some cases, depending on the reasons. Of course, some forms or methods of communication indicate just the opposite. I do believe there is alot of intelligence out there. I also believe the probility of detecting a valid signal is remote but possible. As far as carrying on a conservation, this would be rather difficult when considering the turn-around time. As far as, "why won't they communicate with us?". Maybe they lack the patience to wait for a reply since it could take dozens if not hundreds of years. And if they take the same approach as we do, then they are probably doing more receiving than sending. John P.S. Some life forms don't even have a brain. But, still manage to communicate and reproduce.

Just as a side note (and in the opposite direction of SETI), when a predator is seen, some vocalization (howls, cries, etc.) of herding/flocking animals places the originator of the vocalization in greater danger. While the rest of the flock/herd is forewarned, the vocalizer also draws the attention of the predator. It would seem that the benefit to the herd/flock has survival benefits which outweigh the benefit of protecting a single individual. Even the herding/flocking/schooling instinct reveals an underlying form of communication (usually visual) which benefits survival. When one member bolts from fear, the others follow suit.

From another angle, in some troops, a monkey which fails to call out upon finding a food source is then shunned or chastized by the remainder of the troop. Again, communication which is beneficial to a species appears to be encouraged by naturally selection.

Yet, to recognize any communication, some intelligence must be in place. Thus, it appears that communication and intelligence may go hand-in-hand. More complex communication requires more complex intelligence. In turn, greater intelligence would enable more complex communication. (Stuart Kauffman would love this.)

[subversion]

I just had to get in on this thread

Originally Posted by AntonioLao Is it right to say that failure to communicate is an indication for a lack of intelligence? The brain might be full of great ideas but until these are communicated, nothing is accomplished.

this ties in with what I posted in the "how to maximize neuron connection" thread. The short answer is that, yes, failure to communicate is an aspect of lacking intelligence. This seems annoying when you know you've got everything figured out, but you just can't explain it. To be fair, however, relating an idea is just as important as conjuring it up.

There are two aspects to the intelligence of a conscious entity: the within and the without. If the brain is full of great ideas then communication between neurons in the brain is highly effective and hence the within intelligence is of a high level. However, if that person cannot communicate his/her ideas to others, then communication of this brain with other brains is poor and thus the without intelligence is of a low level. To have both good within and without intelligence is a rare gift, and it means that one can not only innovate, but bring those innovations to a broader level of conscious awareness, thus increasing the intelligence of the macro-consciousness.

Originally Posted by AntonioLao If Newton or Einstein or Maxwell have lived till now then the 3 geniuses would have gotten together and come up with a TOE. Now we can't communicate with them and our present problem is to unite Newton-Einstein theory with that of quantum mechanics.

It is my belief that personalities are recurrent throughout history. It's almost as if the great spirit of intelligent thinkers constantly remanifests thoughout time in different life forms. As such, I believe Einstein Maxwell and Newton are all with us today, just reincarnated. If we're lucky, somebody will be all three, and he will create the TOE. So do not despair, the spirit of the great thinkers is still with us, hiding in some unlikely soul.

Originally Posted by force5 failure to communicate in no way is indicative on ones intelligence.

I humbly disagree force. Communication is the nature of intelligence. While one aspect of that is the communication within the brain, an equally important aspect is communication without (i.e. outside) the brain. So yes you can be very intelligent and not communicate with others. However, you will be doubly intelligent if you can have both!!

Originally Posted by AntonioLao is the universe created by a superintelligence? Does your universe have feeling and emotion? for example, Anger? Happiness? Sorrow?

well I could go into detail, but generally I think the answer to these questions may be a tentative yes. Specifically about the emotion question, I think the emotion of the universe is something which exists and, in lines with it being an aspect of consciousness, it would simply be the average of the emotions of all sentient beings in the universe. So if all sentient beings were generally angry, it would not only point to an underlying cause, but result in the universal feeling of anger.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by <<GUILLE>> I'm still thinking a lot about the best way of describing intelligence. Does anybody have an idea of a good description?

I would define intelligence as a degree of consciousness. Consciousness is any system of self-actuating communication. Intelligence is then the degree of intricacy of any system of self-actuating communication.

[JAK]

Originally Posted by subversion I would define intelligence as a degree of consciousness. Consciousness is any system of self-actuating communication. Intelligence is then the degree of intricacy of any system of self-actuating communication.

Please define "self-actuating communication" a bit more. "Self-actualization" is such a strong element of humanistic psychology (Maslow) that I am having difficulty clarifying the differences between that and your term. Is "self-actuating communication" tightly related to "within" and "without" intelligence? Is it those and more? Or is it completely different?

Thanks

[Guille]

Originally Posted by subversion I would define intelligence as a degree of consciousness. Consciousness is any system of self-actuating communication. Intelligence is then the degree of intricacy of any system of self-actuating communication.

well, after writing that post, I wrote this definition:

Originally Posted by <<>> To Omni, Antonio and to all in general, What do you think about this description!?: Intelligence is the cerebral capacity and the mental ability which leads to make decisions, comunicate, deduce, memorize, imagen, calculate, make analogies, reasoning, find relationships, create, learn.....caused by the cognitive process and conections between neurons.

which I believe is more scientific (neuronal cognition...) and, in general, different to yours. Mine defines what it lets us do, what it is: the capacity of doing, now it looks a bit like the common definition of energy. Although I would like you to explain as JAK said, your definition in a wider way.

[subversion]

While I do agree, Guille, that your definition is somewhat different than mine, I would not necessarily concur that it is more scientific per se. Mine is designed to be a broad definition which can be said to be true in all cases, thus it broadens our classic understanding of consciousness. For example, your definition refers to a cerebral capacity, whereas my definition is not contingent on a cerebellum because it implies that consciousness exists and is manifested at multiple levels which are integrated into and within eachother, the individual brain being just one level of integration.

The integration within this level then, one brain, is considered to be the within intelligence of that brain. It signifies the precision and complexity of the communication between the neurons in that brain. Conversely, the way that that brain is integrated into a larger whole (i.e. how it communicates) is considered to be the without intelligence of that brain. In this case, the brain is essentially acting like one neuron in a larger brain. That larger brain is, at one level, the human race as a whole, and at an even larger level, the cosmos entirely. So the precision and complexity of your ability to communicate with other brains is what forms a small component of the intelligence quotient of the collective human consciousness of all those brains together. In other words, your without intelligence is the human race's within intelligence. Likewise, your within intelligence is the result of the outward or without intelligence of all your neurons. The three main tenants of the proposal are this: first and foremost, communication is the basis of intelligence; second, this communication manifests and is integrated at multiple levels (communication of neurons, communication of brains, etc.); thirdly, intelligence is measured as a degree of intricacy within and without any given integration point.

Hopefully I explained it well
But as for your question, Jak, I used the term "self-actuating" to denote the difference between say a computer and a brain. Humans can be considered self-actuating, but computers are actuated by us. Therefore computers are not themselves conscious, but rather are an extension of our consciousness. Perhaps if you describe what "self-actualization" means according to Maslow I would be able to better clarify the difference, if there is one.

[Guille]

yes, well, I meant yours was more psicological and mine more biological. never mind. I didn't mean further things.

[JAK]

Originally Posted by subversion ... But as for your question, Jak, I used the term "self-actuating" to denote the difference between say a computer and a brain. Humans can be considered self-actuating, but computers are actuated by us. Therefore computers are not themselves conscious, but rather are an extension of our consciousness. Perhaps if you describe what "self-actualization" means according to Maslow I would be able to better clarify the difference, if there is one.

I believe your clarification resolved my confusion about terms.

Question: Are "self-actuating" and "free will" virtually the same idea? (A computer, just like a hammer, has no will of its own.)

As for "self-actualization," it refers to the highest aspiration for personal growth according to Abraham Maslow's system. "Self-actualization" is living to one's fullest potential - utilizing one's skills and talents fully. Further, self-actualization becomes one's goal in life - not personal safety or interaction with others or any of the other steps on Maslow's hierarchy - just the fulfillment of one's abilities.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by JAK Question: Are "self-actuating" and "free will" virtually the same idea? (A computer, just like a hammer, has no will of its own.) As for "self-actualization," it refers to the highest aspiration for personal growth according to Abraham Maslow's system. "Self-actualization" is living to one's fullest potential - utilizing one's skills and talents fully. Further, self-actualization becomes one's goal in life - not personal safety or interaction with others or any of the other steps on Maslow's hierarchy - just the fulfillment of one's abilities.

yes, something with free will is something that is self-actuating, they are the same thing. This is indeed somewhat different than Maslow's concept of self-actualization