MoonlessNight said:
If intelligence is independent of medium and is defined mechanically (i.e. anything that follows a problem-solving algorithm) could the following things be intelligent:
A series of interactions between strands of DNA (either set up by humans or occurring naturally, feel free to give different answers)?
A highly advanced calculator that does nothing but add integers (but add them very, very, fast)?
The sum total of weather in the Earth's atmosphere?
The problem that you are going to have to settle is that one you mentioned before about the definition of intelligence. Intelligent people define things and only discuss when a definition is agreed upon or understood.
The problem with the word intelligence is that common people have used the word in its comparative form so much more than anything else, that they have accepted that the word only applies to the more highly intelligent beings, and anything less than some vague line drawn slightly under the level of human intelligence is considered un-intelligent. This kind of conceptualizing fails completely when examining anything closely. Thus to discuss who has intelligence and how much, you really have to get rid of the notion that only highly intelligent beings have any of it.
If you look merely at the fundamental concept of intelligence, then you see merely a problem solving process that could be very sophisticated, or could be extremely simple or any where in between. Without having a firm place to draw the line, you are stuck with just using the basic concept and accepting that the degree of intelligence is measured by the sophistication. That sophistication could be extremely complex, or could be extremely simple.
In the case of an extremely simply intelligence, even a calculator represents more than the basics.
Intelligence doesn't just have levels, it also has types. A person can solve one kind of problem very well but perhaps has great difficulty with another type. A different person could be just the reverse.
If you accept that intelligence is truly no more than the ability to problem solve (which is how my Webster's dictionary defines it), then yes, even a DNA is actually an intelligent entity to a limited degree.
Even the process of evolution itself is a problem solving process as well as many other naturally occurring phenomena.
The arguing between the evolutionist and the creationist can only be resolved by settling on a definition. After they settle on one, then the argument changes form and shortly they discover that they are both right.
The distinction between that which solves a problem and that which doesn't is that the non-problem solving entity does not correct toward any specific goal. This means that whatever you are talking about must be something that adjusts something in a particular direction despite disturbances to the contrary. The better it can handle interferences and complications, the more highly intelligent it is.
As far as the weather being an intelligent entity, I would have to ask for your limits as to what all you include into the category of "weather". Is the sun a part of weather or just one of the affecters? Is the ocean a part of the weather, or just a source for it's process? Is the wind a part of the weather, or just a result of it? What defines exactly what is weather and what is only a result or a source of and for weather?
Personally, I separate intelligence into 3 components,
-- 1) Input (senses)
-- 2) Reactive response (including memory from prior inputs)
-- 3) Output (decision to act)
All 3 of these must be present for anything to solve problems. The more complex yet harmonious the inner reactions are, the more intelligent the being will be assuming that it doesn’t ignore its senses entirely or choose to never make any final decisions. The more sophisticated the input matrix, the more potential for high intelligence something has. The more sophisticated the output or affecting potential, the more total intelligence will be present.
The reason that the input and output must be included in intelligence, is simply that the inner reactive responses are directly dependant on their sophistication. If the input senses are different, a problem might still be able to be solved, but it will mandate that a different method for solving it be derived. Any different method must inherently alter the final result either in precision or speed. The same is true of the output potentials. Anything that directly alters the algorithm, inherently controls the intelligence performance and thus how much and what type of intelligence the thing has.
Accuracy of intelligence is the only problem man has (defining his words word take away a great deal from the resultant stupidity).