I still don't understand what your criteria are for defining the appearance of intelligence.
I thought the Turing test defined the appearance of intelligence. Evolution cannot pass a Turing test.
If you define 'intelligence' as "the appearance of intelligence", then it's just a tautology. In my opinion. (I think I understand what you are trying to say, however.)
Doesn't Godel, Escher, Bach have something to say about this? Do you remember the part where they are analyzing an ant colony (or some such) which appears to have the attributes of intelligence, but is actually composed of many unintelligent bits?
no subject
I thought the Turing test defined the appearance of intelligence. Evolution cannot pass a Turing test.
If you define 'intelligence' as "the appearance of intelligence", then it's just a tautology. In my opinion. (I think I understand what you are trying to say, however.)
Doesn't Godel, Escher, Bach have something to say about this? Do you remember the part where they are analyzing an ant colony (or some such) which appears to have the attributes of intelligence, but is actually composed of many unintelligent bits?