Along the lines of GEB, electrical impulses in the brain are a necessary component of human intelligence. However, the impulses are themselves not a result of human intelligence.
Did you mean to say "human intelligence is not a result of the impulses themselves"?
Even if we conclude that reality is itself intelligent, evolution may be the functional equivalent of the electrical impulses. In fact, I think that model is more consistent with intelligent reality than the conclusion that evolution is the output of that intelligence.
You're right, the process of evolution isn't enough by itself, it needs an environment to work in. And varying some parameters of this environment might change its results significantly, e.g. increasing or decreasing the amount of cosmic rays that cause mutations. Maybe the analogy is that evolution is the software while reality is the hardware. On the other hand, software is just a particular arrangement of electrons in the hardware, so I'm not sure there's any reason to draw that line of separation.
no subject
Did you mean to say "human intelligence is not a result of the impulses themselves"?
Even if we conclude that reality is itself intelligent, evolution may be the functional equivalent of the electrical impulses. In fact, I think that model is more consistent with intelligent reality than the conclusion that evolution is the output of that intelligence.
You're right, the process of evolution isn't enough by itself, it needs an environment to work in. And varying some parameters of this environment might change its results significantly, e.g. increasing or decreasing the amount of cosmic rays that cause mutations. Maybe the analogy is that evolution is the software while reality is the hardware. On the other hand, software is just a particular arrangement of electrons in the hardware, so I'm not sure there's any reason to draw that line of separation.