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

[Paleophyte]

Neither the blade of grass nor the entire grass plant nor the entire meadow is intelligent. You could plant the entire planet with grass and not get any intelligence.

Examples are trivially easy, as Angbroda demonstrated. Grass isn't intelligent. Neither is any plant, fungus, or microbe. Neither are most animals. There, you now have a longish list of non-hypothetical living organisms that show no evidence of intelligence. Your hierarchy is clearly wrong.

Every being has intelligence because it perceives information from its environment, converts it into knowledge, and acts with this knowledge, surviving and reproducing. This does not mean that all have the same level of intelligence, e.g. among mammals, humans have the highest.

Grass has no intelligence. It neither perceives nor understands nor acts.

[Angrboda]

And my reply, which I wrote after careful consideration of your initial post, also contained important information, which you have apparently just ignored.



This tells me where information is, but it does not tell me what it is.  Moreover it's wrong, as things like air and bacteria and undifferentiated matter are included, none of which constitutes actual information, as none of it can be organized as required by the second part of your definition.



As just pointed out to you, there are exceptions to this.  Repeating your earlier assertions do not answer the point you are replying to here.



A blade of grass cannot perceive information, nor organize it, nor act on it.  Please explain how an organism that doesn't fit your definition of intelligence is thereby intelligent?  That seems an obvious contradiction.

This applies to you and any member who wants to logically challenge the first absolute law of logic. A blade of grass is not the plant, it is like your hand, i.e. part of the being! Give a difficult real non-hypothetical example, so that we can see together whether intelligence is defined according to the law. The law does not make a qualitative distinction of intelligence. Whether something is intelligent or how intelligent it is should be analyzed with rigorous critical logical analysis.

"A blade of grass" is a metonym that refers to the whole plant, thus your claim that it is only a part of the plant only indicates your poor understanding of the English language. The question was proper as stated and you misunderstood it.

Second, I pointed out that you had ignored the legitimacy of my complaint about the exceptions to your law rendering it not a law, as well as my points about it being ambiguous and therefore not an explicit law of anything.

Third, I will explain why your definition of information, which is a part of your law by reference, is wrong. You state that everything inside an intelligent being is information. However this is not an example of standard usage of the term. While facts about my pancreas can be information, my pancreas itself is not the information, nor is the perception of my pancreas information in and of itself, it is the representation of that perception which is information. By its roots, when we say representation, it implies a second presentation of a thing. Thus the color of my pancreas and my pancreas itself are not the information, but rather the re/presenting of these aspects of the thing are information. Information has an intentional aspect, it is 'about' something. This has consequences for your law. I can perceive that I have food in my mouth, and I can reorganize the food in my mouth by swallowing, but that is not intelligent, quite the opposite. Thus by defining information as everything inside an intelligent being, you are equivocating using a non-standard definition of information which renders your law indeterminate. What does it mean to organize my hip bone into knowledge? Does it mean anything at all. As a result of your definition of information, your 'law' no longer has a clear meaning. A law must first have a definite meaning as an ambiguous statement cannot be a law, absolute or otherwise. By using a private definition of information, you have rendered your law meaningless.

[panpan]

Every being has intelligence because it perceives information from its environment, converts it into knowledge, and acts with this knowledge, surviving and reproducing. This does not mean that all have the same level of intelligence, e.g. among mammals, humans have the highest.

Grass has no intelligence. It neither perceives nor understands nor acts.

Every biological organism is made of DNA. DNA is the molecule that carries the genetic instructions for the development, growth, and reproduction of all organisms. It takes chemical information, organizes it into knowledge, and with that knowledge creates millions of different organisms.(Perception → Knowledge → Action) = First Absolute Law of Logic.

[Angrboda]

Grass has no intelligence. It neither perceives nor understands nor acts.

Every biological organism is made of DNA. DNA is the molecule that carries the genetic instructions for the development, growth, and reproduction of all organisms. It takes chemical information, organizes it into knowledge, and with that knowledge creates millions of different organisms.(Perception → Knowledge → Action) = First Absolute Law of Logic.

More non-standard usage, which renders your law meaningless. The DNA doesn't organize anything into knowledge as knowledge at a minimum refers to a belief and that's not what is created. It seems overall you are using language in an inconsistent and nonstandard way, equivocating as you go. Knowledge means one thing when used in your first law, and something else with reference to DNA. Since equivocation is a fatal fallacy, it renders your entire argument invalid.

[Deesse23]

The troll perceives himself to be WAAAAAAAAY smarter than he actually is.....which is a common problem with those. He has no idea (or doesnt give a fuck) that he is utterly ignorant about 99% of everything he has been talking about. Add to that the fact that he hardly addresses most replies and keeps on repeating his assertions and false equivalences. I lean towards believing we are looking at someone preaching here. Any further (reasonable and serious) interaction is pointless.

Time to gab my popcorn 

[Paleophyte]

Grass has no intelligence. It neither perceives nor understands nor acts.

Every biological organism is made of DNA. DNA is the molecule that carries the genetic instructions for the development, growth, and reproduction of all organisms. It takes chemical information, organizes it into knowledge, and with that knowledge creates millions of different organisms.(Perception → Knowledge → Action) = First Absolute Law of Logic.

No. Every biological organism contains DNA. In terms of mass and volume it's a pretty minor component. It stores chemical information, which encodes for just one very specific organism, not millions. It doesn't perceive, organize, or act. DNA doesn't do anything that would be considered knowledge.

Your "law" is simply wrong.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Is a cactus intelligent? Why or why not?

Boru

Give a difficult real non-hypothetical example so that we can see together whether intelligence is defined according to the law. The law does not make a qualitative distinction of intelligence. Whether something is intelligent or how intelligent it is should be analyzed with rigorous critical logical analysis.

Is a cactus intelligent? Why or why not?

Boru

[Mister Agenda]

"Intelligence is the ability to perceive information, to organize that information into knowledge, and, with that knowledge, to act.

It is the First Absolute Law of Logic because it defines, in a concise and indisputable way, what intelligence is. It is called "absolute" because it is self-validating (the attempt to deny it confirms it) and it is first because every concept depends on the existence of intelligence to be formulated.
Proof:
Anyone who attempts to dispute this definition: first perceives the information of the definition, organizes it into knowledge to understand it, and finally acts by voicing the dispute. Therefore, they use the exact three elements, Perception > Knowledge > Action, that the Law defines as the mechanism of intelligence."

Is someone unable to act unintelligent? Without assistance and artificial aids, would Hawking have ceased to be intelligent when he was no longer able to act?

Based on the first absolute law of logic, every biological being has intelligence. If it has a problem, gets sick, etc., it does not function properly.

So the part about acting is superfluous, right? An intelligent being is intelligent whether or not it acts or is able to act.

[panpan]

Every biological organism is made of DNA. DNA is the molecule that carries the genetic instructions for the development, growth, and reproduction of all organisms. It takes chemical information, organizes it into knowledge, and with that knowledge creates millions of different organisms.(Perception → Knowledge → Action) = First Absolute Law of Logic.

More non-standard usage, which renders your law meaningless.   The DNA doesn't organize anything into knowledge as knowledge at a minimum refers to a belief and that's not what is created.  It seems overall you are using language in an inconsistent and nonstandard way, equivocating as you go.  Knowledge means one thing when used in your first law, and something else with reference to DNA.   Since equivocation is a fatal fallacy, it renders your entire argument invalid.

What do genetic instructions mean to biologists? Something that enriches their knowledge! Genetic instructions have the DNA.

[Paraselene]