To the question of does God exist, the answer is whether Intelligence created Life

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Let's examine your thinking here.  First you say that intelligence is not a set of functions.  Yet you define it as perceiving, organizing, and acting, and in doing so violate your own restriction.  You claim that every concept is explicitly defined, yet nowhere is it explicit whether awareness of the contents of my mind is a form of perception or whether perception refers to only information acquired through the senses.  You do not give any indication as to what information is, nor what organizing it means.   And the obvious reason for this is that one quickly encounters conceptual difficulties in doing so that depend upon unresolved questions about foundationalism.  Nowhere do you even indicate how you advise we resolve the ambiguity inherent in such, much less resolve them into something explicit and valid.  

But there are other problems, namely in that your 'law' has exceptions.  The first and most obvious being that intelligence neither requires nor implies action.  Thus I can intelligently analyze your definition and so long as I don't act upon the information that I've organized into knowledge, I have violated your claim that I cannot do so.   Second, as hinted at earlier, we possess a priori principles and understandings which are more akin to emotions than knowledge as we accept their normative judgements based upon feelings of desirability or undesirability or disgust rather than upon the basis of justifications or their specific representation.  This is a problem with these norms all around, as they aren't information as it is normally understood because information from our perception does not represent norms -- norms are all internal.  So we can have intelligence, such as the derivation of deMorgan's law, that do not involve perception of anything.  And third, artists regularly organize information according to individualized aesthetic judgements, yet the resulting organized elements do not result in knowledge because they are not truth bearers and thus cannot be justified.  So here we have three different examples of intelligence each of which is lacking one or more components of your definition.  A law refers to a naturally occurring regularity, but since your definition doesn't refer to a natural regularity, it cannot be a law.  At best it is your opinion of how to describe intelligence.  But there is no law against describing intelligence in other ways, and your law doesn't proscribe us doing so.

Additionally, your law is not self-referential.   That an instance of your definition might be involved in intelligently considering your law does not make it self-referential.

Administrator Notice
This was hidden by staff and not meant to be reposted in full view.  Removing the actions of staff is ill-advised.

First, the original text must be read carefully, which contains very important information.

Information is everything in an intelligent being, chemical, optical, acoustic, etc.

In order for you as an intelligent being to perceive something, you must first perceive it, then understand what you have perceived to become knowledge for you and with this knowledge to act, that is, to think, write, speak, and act.

Every living organism has intelligence at a different level, but the basic thing it does is to perceive the information in the environment, to understand it and adapt to it, to become knowledge for it, and thus, by acting, to survive and reproduce.

Is a cactus intelligent? Why or why not?

Boru