it must be a quantum effect involving spookiness at a distance, a la Einstein. Nothing else feels right.-It must be? Reminds of Billy Graham's Angels (In a different context) Graham used angels as an explanation as there apparently could be no other explanation?-"I don't know and will await more evidence" feels right to me.

No one knows. All mediated by chemistry and the production of ions. 
> So are you saying there may be a neuron or synapse that does not respond to cause and effect? Well I suppose this is testable, but I'm not volunteering for that experiment. -
I doubt that synapses refuse to respond, unless an impulse from another neuron blocks the response, which raises another issue of complexity. What is beyond doubt at this moment is no one knows what consciousness is in relation to the brain. It 'seems' to arise from the brain, but at a level that makes it 'feel' separate from the brain, as each of us experiences it. it must be a quantum effect involving spookiness at a distance, a la Einstein. Nothing else feels right.

No one knows. All mediated by chemistry and the production of ions. 
So are you saying there may be a neuron or synapse that does not respond to cause and effect? Well I suppose this is testable, but I'm not volunteering for that experiment. -> And I might add, what is one's willingness to be an autodidact?-A reflection of one's environment. What else?

Quite
> But then again which neuron in my brain is not behaving according to the same laws of mass action - chemistry?-With 100 billion neurons, and who knows exactly how many branching axons, the branching mediated in part by what one has learned and concluded, no two brains are the same, ever! How many gazillion synapses? No one knows. All mediated by chemistry and the production of ions. And that despised measure I.Q., is definitely elevated depending on how you are approached by Mum, how many words in her vocabulary, how many books are read to you before school, and the attitude toward learning embued by your parents.-And I might add, what is one's willingness to be an autodidact?

Could this be described as intelligence that is completely different to ours?
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18391-intelligent-oil-droplet-navigates-chemical-... pH difference described in the article is the same as a dog on a leash. Neither is an example of intelligence. Now the dog off the leash performs a trick he has been taught: simple intelligence. Now the dog spots my 'going-out' hat and runs to hide so as to avoid his kennel. A higher integrative form of intelligence. Obviously your question leads to a spectrum of definitions.

I do believe, though, that only a live, conscious entity can have intelligence, but I haven't a clue where instinct (unconscious behaviour) ends and conscious intelligence begins, and even the borders between life and non-life are indistinct. 
I again agree that we can chase the boundaries life and non life. Conscious and entities that are incapable of consciousness. In fact these borders are simply a matter of human defintion. We observe animals, plants and bricks behave differently at least a birds eye view. And we ultimately put them into 'appropriate' boxes. But the human mind is a consumate classifier.-> Consequently, we more or less have to choose what level we're going to think on. .... I would expand your suspicions to most of what we think we know about "reality". On an overall philosophical level, it seems to me that virtually nothing is clear-cut, and because our knowledge is so limited (remember the Popper quote?), we CAN only operate on pragmatic levels. Science can investigate the material world, and philosophers can speculate about meaning, but nobody can draw definitive conclusions about "reality", and so we're left with beliefs plus suspicions that our beliefs may not be accurate. You and I are therefore probably in agreement on all levels, which may be as far as we can hope to go.-I would agree nothing can be perceived ultimately accurate (or more accurately I cannot ascertain a mechanism for attaining such truths). But that does not mean one definition is better not at explaining what intelligence is than another, in a reality sense. Now if we are discussing a proposed creator of the universe (which I'm loathed to do - I have the same aversion to such beings as you do of chemistry ;) ) Your definition may be useful; but I suspect my professor's defintion might be more useful when discussing a more deterministic universe?-Regarding perceiving reality - I agree I don't know how to be sure what I'm perceiving is accurate; but based on the evidence some methods to appear to better predictors of reality than others.

I don't see how an individual human being can exist, let alone be intelligent, before conception, unless you believe in reincarnation. Or are you suggesting that the egg (or the sperm) is already a human being prior to fertilization? 
I did not quite say that; I was referring a human being's development 
Philosophically speaking this would go back to the formation carbon in stars and further back in a euphemistic creation.-> I think I'd only extend my don't-know answer as far as the foetus. 
OK so at what point does a foetus begin and end?
I'll keep questioning any boundary you choose. 
> With regard to your professor's definition ("the ability of an entity to synthesize at least one response that is correlated with at least one stimulus"), as we have noted, it can be applied to entities that are non-organic and, as far as we know, have no conscious ability to think, learn, apply knowledge etc. 
Quite - now do you believe that only CHON ( primarily carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and trace elements) entities can have intelligence?->I don't believe that in your heart of hearts you really attribute intelligence to your famous brick, even though we can't prove it, and so if I'm right, this will leave us almost agreeing on my definition, and completely agreeing that we don't know if or where there's a line between intelligent/non-intelligent etc. in a human being's development.
Perhaps - I would agree my intuitive answer would be much like yours. But to steal and modify a concept from Carl Sagan, I try not to reason with my heart of hearts.-But my good professor's definition and my reason lead me suspect that intelligence may be a continuum rather than "no" - "yes" followed by a scale.
 
> However, you have a caveat: you think I'm "replacing one imponderable (intelligence) with another (consciousness)." I'm not replacing one with another, since consciousness is only part of my definition, but in any case when challenged I also defined consciousness. If we combine my two definitions for the sake of clarity, we get: "the ability ... during a state in which one is awake, aware of oneself, and aware of what is going on around oneself ... to perceive, learn, understand and think about things, and to apply the knowledge thereby acquired." No room for bricks, but I see that as an advantage over your professor's definition!
Again I have no problem with your definition, it is far more pragmatic or useful in someways - especially when dealing with human affairs. But I suspect it is not an accurate representation of reality.
 
> On the subject of free will, if I've understood you correctly (I'm not a scientist, so please forgive me if I've got this wrong), you are suggesting that "the law of mass action" would at least theoretically enable accurate prediction of human behaviour, 
This is quite often people's deduction of the deterministic premise. When we think carefully about determinism it shows us whatever it is, we or any part of the universe is ultimately unpredictable. Two caveats of course, one, we can predict trajectories of billiard balls etc in isolated systems etc. Two, magical demons that are oblivious to cause and effect may be able to theoretically predict our behaviour. -> and since we are made of molecules, the implication is that there is no place for free will. This goes to the very heart of our discussions. We may feel that our thoughts, decisions, memories, imagination, will, self-awareness etc. are somehow independent of the body, and are at least partly controlled by an autonomous identity, but are they and the identity just molecules behaving predictably? 
Agree
> If so, how can physical matter produce such apparently non-physical activities and faculties? I can't answer either question, and that's one reason why I remain agnostic.-Yep

The ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe
> > I would fully agree, and if you don't mind I will use that brief sentence as my definition also )
> 
> Sure no problem - but I discussed this with people (well a person) who disagrees with this definition because free will itself is simply a non sequitur.-I'm still with you. the objection is semantic rubbish

The ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe
> I would fully agree, and if you don't mind I will use that brief sentence as my definition also )-Sure no problem - but I discussed this with people (well a person) who disagrees with this definition because free will itself is simply a non sequitur.

I would be interested in mining you sometime for your thoughts on Modern philosophy; as someone who adheres to moral contextualism and radical skepticism the concept that ANYTHING can be universal seems... quaint at best. -I do not have any background in any kind of philosophic thought. One general course in college, a little Adler,and a book I am currently reading that I alluded to. My own philosophy is probably greatly influenced by 40+ years in medicine, with our own way of thinking. Occam's razor in diagnosis. I guess you will have to pick away and perhaps we will find I know more than I think


> > > Free will is not about making choices per se. 
> > > 
> > > I'm also happy to concede that I feel like I have free will and that my ego appears to behave in such a manner.
> > 
> > Will you define your version of free will, please.
> No problem, this is my personal definition
> > The ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe-
I would fully agree, and if you don't mind I will use that brief sentence as my definition also )


> > Free will is not about making choices per se. 
> > 
> > I'm also happy to concede that I feel like I have free will and that my ego appears to behave in such a manner.
> 
> Will you define your version of free will, please.
No problem, this is my personal definition
> The ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe

However, since you won't accept "we don't know" as an answer (I will happily change that to "I don't know" if you prefer it), let me pursue a question I asked earlier and which you did not respond to. 
dhw
This is not quite what I meant - my apologies. My question is there a line between intellgent/non-intelligent or conscious/unconscious in a human being's development? If your answer is I don't know fair enough, for I don't either. But in that case could it extend to before conception? My answer of course is I also don't know. But this line of reasoning extends to my professor's definition?-
> How do you distinguish between instinct and intelligence, is there a specific point at which the one turns into the other, and if so where is it? My own answer is that instinctive behaviour is unconscious whereas intelligent behaviour is conscious, but I do not know if there is a specific point at which the one turns into the other. -In pragmatic everyday conversations it would be conscious and unconscious behaviours/actions/choices etc. But with careful reflection I suspect I might not distinguish between the two.-> I would also be interested to know precisely why you are not prepared to accept my definition of intelligence.-I have no great dislike or great philosophical objection. If I were to argue against your definition: you are replacing one imponderable (intelligence) with another (consciousness)?-> dhw - Despite Pinker's figure of 40% to 50%, I don't see how we can quantify escapable and inescapable influences ... which is a typically agnostic way of saying I don't know to what extent our will is free.-My background as a chemist has shown me the law of mass action
> The product of the apparent concentrations of the products divided by the product of the apparent concentrations is equal to a constant
has shown me that it is an accurate predictor of behaviour of molecules. Now which bit of me is not described the law of mass action? This is where free will would have to reside. Unless someone can point to another place because I cannot envisage something else!


> > Okay, so we're in agreement: we're only talking about an epistemological boundary; All knowledge is based on modification or application of previous knowledge. 
> > 
> > You're extending an assertion that robot's won't be capable of creating a new concept. For example, robots would only ever be able to work in "normal" science, never in paradigmatic science? 
> > 
> > I don't see the connection here to Free Will. To me, what you guys are talking about is that robots can only make choices based on what choices they're allowed to make--which is no different than what we do. A human being cannot make a choice beyond that which he cannot conceive. Someone with an IQ of 85 is unlikely to create the "Theory of Everything." Humans have absolute freedom to make any choices within their box; so are robots. In this particular definition of Free Will--robots exercise this exactly, yet we would all agree that they don't actually have "free will" because we understand "free will" to be a property of sentience.
> 
> The connection to free will is the 'box' concept. Free Will is limited by our knowledge, as you appear to agree to above. Bella uses the word playpen. I think we can conclude that robots will always be boxed, and can only act within their box, but among humans, there are Einsteins who open up whole new areas of boxes and we all join in, if we choose. This is free will in intellectual study. I've been reading a new book on scholastic philosophy, using Thomism to show that God exists. I know its a throwback, but I'm not sure modern philosophy is correct. After all, Adler, in his book was proving things all over again, and then died a Catholic. Both he can St. Thomas used maintaining the system as a key point. My point is (I'm really not off topic) that by free will I'm opening up my knowledge.-I would be interested in mining you sometime for your thoughts on Modern philosophy; as someone who adheres to moral contextualism and radical skepticism the concept that ANYTHING can be universal seems... quaint at best. I've said it before, but the only irreducible truth I can find in regards to morals or "universal truth" is the fact that people can't exist without other people. It's the only basis for a constant ethical morality that I can think of. -In regards to Adler; many of his arguments (at least in the one book I've read) are easily countered--again it was his more Thomist or Aristotelian arguments. Weaker still is his assertion that we can be epistemically justified making a negative claim without positive evidence for it. He falls into the identical territory as atheists stating "God does not exist."


> Okay, so we're in agreement: we're only talking about an epistemological boundary; All knowledge is based on modification or application of previous knowledge. 
> 
> You're extending an assertion that robot's won't be capable of creating a new concept. For example, robots would only ever be able to work in "normal" science, never in paradigmatic science? 
> 
> I don't see the connection here to Free Will. To me, what you guys are talking about is that robots can only make choices based on what choices they're allowed to make--which is no different than what we do. A human being cannot make a choice beyond that which he cannot conceive. Someone with an IQ of 85 is unlikely to create the "Theory of Everything." Humans have absolute freedom to make any choices within their box; so are robots. In this particular definition of Free Will--robots exercise this exactly, yet we would all agree that they don't actually have "free will" because we understand "free will" to be a property of sentience.-The connection to free will is the 'box' concept. Free Will is limited by our knowledge, as you appear to agree to above. Bella uses the word playpen. I think we can conclude that robots will always be boxed, and can only act within their box, but among humans, there are Einsteins who open up whole new areas of boxes and we all join in, if we choose. This is free will in intellectual study. I've been reading a new book on scholastic philosophy, using Thomism to show that God exists. I know its a throwback, but I'm not sure modern philosophy is correct. After all, Adler, in his book was proving things all over again, and then died a Catholic. Both he can St. Thomas used maintaining the system as a key point. My point is (I'm really not off topic) that by free will I'm opening up my knowledge.