(January 6, 2015 at 7:29 pm)Esquilax Wrote: If his argument goes that all the evolutionary systems he's seen for which the origins are known are the result of intelligence, therefore all evolutionary systems are the result of intelligence, Heywood is making an arbitrary decision to cut things off at generic intelligence, when that's not at all the full scope of what he's saying. In reality, not only are all the evolutionary systems with origins he knows of the result of intelligence, they're specifically the result of human intelligence. Coupled to this, he's also never seen an evolutionary system for which the origin was a non-human or human-created intelligence, so shouldn't the premises of his own argument eliminate that possibility from the running? The argument, when we subtract the hidden special pleading, actually should lead him to the conclusion that evolutionary systems are all the result of human intelligence, even the ones that came into being before humans evolved as a result of them, refuting and showing the clear inadequacies in what he's saying.
What is the substantial difference between generic intellect and human intellect? If they are substantially the same thing I don't see what the issue is.
