[hharrison]

I'll try: a system is intelligent if it is able to respond to low-energy deposits (information) with high-energy reactions (e.g., movement) in order to seek non-local sources of negentropy to dissipate.

But then again I'm more interested in the intelligence that differentiates a slime mold from a hurricane than the intelligence that differentiates a human from a chimpanzee.

For example: hurricanes are self-organized, constituted by a structured flow of energy and matter rather than specific pieces of matter. But a hurricane is a slave to the local potential. It will dissipate all the negentropy in its wake, and in doing so maintain its structure. But once there is no more energy differential to dissipate, the hurricane will itself dissipate as it is not able to break free of the local potential and use information to seek out non-local negentropy sources. The question for research is what is necessary to make that jump from self-organization to intelligence, given that operationalization.

[chongli]

Don't wildfires have the ability to break free of a local potential? All it takes is a small spark, carried on the wind.

Likewise for seeds, fish eggs (carried in the gut of birds), etc.

[hharrison]

Wind is a local potential in this example. An intelligent wildfire would be one whose sparks can go against the wind, because it perceives more fuel in that direction.

Also: my definition is meant to include fish and birds, even plants, as intelligent.

[chongli]

I've seen sparks go against the wind, at least on a small scale. Sparks can be launched pretty far when the burning wood falls and breaks apart.

[mkingston]

You've responded to the second part of: "able to respond to low-energy deposits (information) with high-energy reactions (e.g., movement)"

How does your comment about sparks address the alternatively stated requirement: "because it perceives more fuel in that direction"

[chongli]

How do you define perception?

* A spark flies out randomly and contacts a fuel source

* A blind person reaches out randomly and finds a glass of water

What is the essential difference between these events?

[hharrison]

Either the blind person is responding to some low-energy distribution (scattered sound waves, perhaps, or past samplings of the energy distribution, i.e. memory) or the blind person isn't perceiving any more than the spark is (in this example).

In any case my post above implied a definition for perception: responding to low-energy distributions with an asymmetric high-energy response.