Riddles about intelligence

[Mysterio448]

When I was a child my body was constantly growing as a result of the excretion of growth hormone from my pituitary gland. Was I in control of that endocrine activity? The point of this question is: All of our mental functions can be reduced to mechanism, but is the mechanism that we do not consciously control a part of our own mind or is it something separate?

Your brain was in control of that endocrine activity. You are the brain. You are the system. You can't separate mind and body, because the mind relies on what the body senses.

The brain is nothing more than structures and processes made up of inanimate matter. So if you are the brain, does this imply that there exists latent intelligence within inanimate matter? If not, then from where does intelligence emerge?

[Shadowfax]

The brain is nothing more than structures and processes made up of inanimate matter. So if you are the brain, does this imply that there exists latent intelligence within inanimate matter? If not, then from where does intelligence emerge?

If that inanimate matter has the ability to sense the external world and can transmit messages to inanimate matter which can process it, the inanimate matter becomes intelligent. This is why I think the entire system (of inanimate matter) can be called intelligent, and not separate parts of it because that processing of information cannot exist when one of the components is missing. Take sensory nerves and the brain for example. The nerve isn't intelligent, nor is the brain if it isn't connected to any nerves. The procession of information (acquired from the nerves sending impulses to the brain from an external stimuli) is where intelligence emerges.

[Mysterio448]

The brain is nothing more than structures and processes made up of inanimate matter. So if you are the brain, does this imply that there exists latent intelligence within inanimate matter? If not, then from where does intelligence emerge?

If that inanimate matter has the ability to sense the external world and can transmit messages to inanimate matter which can process it, the inanimate matter becomes intelligent. This is why I think the entire system (of inanimate matter) can be called intelligent, and not separate parts of it because that processing of information cannot exist when one of the components is missing. Take sensory nerves and the brain for example. The nerve isn't intelligent, nor is the brain if it isn't connected to any nerves. The procession of information (acquired from the nerves sending impulses to the brain from an external stimuli) is where intelligence emerges.

But the sensing of the external world and the processing of messages are both phenomena that themselves can be reduced to more processes by more inanimate matter.

I think that if we reduce intelligence to its simplest essence, it can be understood as consistency. But not consistency alone; consistency in the face of random, aimless forces. For example, the moon consistently revolves around the Earth at a consistent orbit and speed, but this does not require much intelligence because it is doing the revolving in the vacuum of space where there is no resistance. If a large meteor half the size of the moon crashed into it and knocked it out of Earth's gravitational field, it is unlikely that the moon would return to its same orbit and speed without external assistance, so we assume the moon is not very intelligent in that regard.

I think ultimately intelligence is a contrast, a comparison of the forces that are consistent in effecting a specific action versus the forces working against that specific action. For example, if you take four tires by themselves and try to make them roll from New York to California simply by giving them each a single push, there are so many forces working against them, or forces that may cause them to do something totally different, that the odds against them making the trip all the way to California are astronomical. But if you attach the tires to crankshafts attached to pistons encased within cylinders infused with a fuel-air mixture ignited by spark plugs, and so on, the chances of the tires making it to California might increase somewhat, but is still highly unlikely without a driver. And if the resulting vehicle was given a microchip that could navigate roads and respond to traffic conditions, then the chances increase considerably. I think this is what intelligence really is, the efficacy of a system in fulfilling a function while compensating for resistance or unfavorable contingencies. The function of the brain is ultimately nothing more than this; I would say that the difference between the intelligence of the brain and the function of an unmanned automobile is more a matter of degree than a matter of kind. I think intelligence is not so much a discrete quality but a spectrum of organizational efficacy.