Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Free Will

[JohannaK]

When you here use the word "intelligence" are you referring to what is often termed sentience? or are you referring to "intelligence" in the sense that some sentient beings possess more "intelligence" than others?

Intelligence as in reason.

 

[Gary Childress]

Are intelligence and reason the same thing? For instance can't a dolphin or Chimpanzee be "intelligent" but not possess "reason"?

 

[timtofly]

Are intelligence and reason the same thing?

Not really. Reason would be a subset of intelligence.

For instance can't a dolphin or Chimpanzee be "intelligent" but not possess "reason"?

Reason deals with why we think and do what we do. I am pretty sure that if there was clear communication between dolphins/chimpanzees and humans, we may be surprised that they do have reason as part of their intelligence. Both have shown behavioral patterns which suggest that they do things outside of instinct that varies dependent on the circumstances they are in. Learned behavior is different than instinctual behavior. Learning allows for more knowledge and intelligence, and thus a broader base in which reason can work.

 

[Kyriakos]

While intelligence is the degree in which a being is able to form complicated ideas (or even feelings), reason is a specific mental development seen in humans on this planet, and probably is a later evolution of the way we process information (the prehistoric people most probably were realising their existence and the world in a far more dream-like manner and prominent animistic views).

 

[Birdjaguar]

Humans are not the only ones to reason.

 

[Kyriakos]

I used the term in a vague way, indeed. I meant the ability to actually not just reason, but be aware of the distinction between reasoning and other types of mental phenomena. I suppose some kinds of animals (eg some apes) may be able to tell such a difference to a smaller degree (or at any rate feel it) given that they can focus on some sort of task they are given, but also have time to play.

It seems to me that reason in behavior largely falls into two categories. One being the scientific-aspiring one. The other being the factoring into behavior the sense one has of being led to positive results and benefits for himself.
While animals do the second by instinct, the first does not appear to be there in any meaningful way. Even those apes in experiments most probably are not aware to any degree of any special value in their behavior in the experiment.

 

[timtofly]

Reminds me of the thought: who is fooling who? But why would we want to humanize everything?

 

[Kyriakos]

'Man is the meter of all things'

 

[classical_hero]

Humans are not the only ones to reason.

Who else does?

 

[timtofly]

'Man is the meter of all things'

There is a difference between comparing things, and forcing things into something they are not.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Sure, however we do not have any non-human means of examining those phenomena anyway, so we will either use/expand/alter our human means to improved versions of still human means, or give up on examining anything non-human or even outside of each person's own psyche.

 

[timtofly]

So a false perception is better than no perception?

 

[Kyriakos]

^ In the way that thinking of 10 dimensions is better than having no notion of a dimension at all. The first can still not be that adequate, and misleading. The second, however, is obviously even further away from any progress towards better examining the phenomenon at hand.
If you want to build the tower of Babel, it will probably be unrealistic to use mudbricks and rise up a level every few months. On the other hand if you have not even any idea of what a building is, then aren't you even further away from such a goal provided you still have a sense of it as something progressive?

Since, otherwise, one could argue that the people of the depth of prehistory, lost in some maze of a personal dream-world and trying to come to terms with hunting animals and wishing something kep enabling them to, were no further away from any progress in thought that we now are- and i am not of such a view at all.

 

[timtofly]

So if we are being fooled by the rest of nature, you are ok with it, because we may never find that out?

 

[Kyriakos]

That is like asking one if he is ok with not being able to live in a different star system. It is rather pointless to not be ok with something you have no ability to change.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I used the term in a vague way, indeed. I meant the ability to actually not just reason, but be aware of the distinction between reasoning and other types of mental phenomena. I suppose some kinds of animals (eg some apes) may be able to tell such a difference to a smaller degree (or at any rate feel it) given that they can focus on some sort of task they are given, but also have time to play.

It seems to me that reason in behavior largely falls into two categories. One being the scientific-aspiring one. The other being the factoring into behavior the sense one has of being led to positive results and benefits for himself.
While animals do the second by instinct, the first does not appear to be there in any meaningful way. Even those apes in experiments most probably are not aware to any degree of any special value in their behavior in the experiment.

Bolded part: And so do people.

Our development of science and its methodology seems to me to be a wholly different topic.

 

[Kyriakos]

While i do agree that people also start off by instinctively acting/thinking in the most beneficial way for them (in their own view), humans can (and everyone does, to a degree) alter that balance with thoughts, and even arrive at the opposite order, leading in the end up to suicide attempts. Animals do not commit suicide (as far as i know there isn't any animal that does), so it has to be supposed they are not able to willingly alter their behavior in a self-harming manner.
That said, some animals (such as dogs) obviously can be traumatised and then diminish their ways, but it does not seem at all to be a decision on their part, it is just the overwhelming impression that they are in a hopeless position. So even a stray dog in miserable shape will keep on crawling on the streets, and never will try to end its own life.

In the case of humans, while the onset often is again their impression that their position is impossible to make anything good of, they proceed to actively be more self-destructive, or even utterly suicidal. This shows that they have the ability to erode the logic in regards to self-preservation, and to fight their own body along the way.

 

[timtofly]

Is that an argument in favor of free will?

 

[JohannaK]

The one most important difference between humans and other animals is that the latter show a behaviour which is distinctively sensible. Meaning that a decision in a certain instant depends mostly if not fully on the circumstances affecting it and surrounding it in that very same instant. On the other hand, men seem to display more complex interactions because their actions are not just based on that instant circumstances, but generally they will depend greatly on past knowledge, ideas and convictions.

 

[Kyriakos]

The one most important difference between humans and other animals is that the latter show a behaviour which is distinctively sensible. Meaning that a decision in a certain instant depends mostly if not fully on the circumstances affecting it and surrounding it in that very same instant. On the other hand, men seem to display more complex interactions because their actions are not just based on that instant circumstances, but generally they will depend greatly on past knowledge, ideas and convictions.

^That is too vague and doesn't have to be correct even in this vague state, given that some animals can alter their behavior as a very clear effect of past experience. If you have a dog and feed it each day, it will tend to be happy to be fed. If one night you place its food on its dish, allow it to approach and then burn it with some torch, it will stop being so carefree when it has to eat.

Compare that to an ant. The ant will march towards you without any means of realising you even exist as an entity. If you attack it it can go into panic mode and run away. However the effect is short-lived, and it will show the same lack of worry about its environment until the next time a specific attack takes place and causes it to panic again as if it was the first time.
Contrary to the dog, which will not only feel threatened the minute it is attacked, but will keep that experience and it will continue to play a role in its behavior nomatter how much time passes.