I agree. Another way to illustrate this is,that nature is ‘intelligent’ , in a retroactive way, as the word ,‘intelligence’ is arrived by evolutionary process, but, it can be ascribed strictly by trying to ascertain the process as it were a devolution.
In other words, the word intelligence is of a potential scope, whereby the associations of perceptions, objects and communications create more and more complex channels, with the evolving structures of naming them, thereby creating ideas of them.
The pre conscious can not be defined , visualized, or realized in this way, it can only by hypothesized, that a pre formative, internal pattern,has the potential to
draw in experiential dats, in ways, which sets up a correspondence.
The data is thus militarized, in incremental short neural signs, progressively abstract.
This progression reversely, becomes regressively entropic, where the they exhibit more general contained sets of signs. Howevr, the variables which developed progressively, can not be ascertained with the causal accuracy which formed the central idea, and analysi reversely makes for neural channels of most probable causal chain.
Natural intelligence then can only be a hypothetical formal arrangement, which sets of a correspondence between potential and overt sets of the highest probability. Given this viewpoint, the proposition that Leibnitz proposed, as this world being the best of possible worlds, is right on. Here, ‘best’ is not meant as a value of good as opposed to bad, only that, best entails the most likely development, based on the idea, that this reality is what it is, therefore, it favored progression in this particular way.
The idea behind that is, that present reality developed along the lines of this particular presenting, and it probably resulted in this particular fashion, because it was the consummate most probable way to do so.
It didn’t develop any other way, because it tended to in no other way. This is not mere hypothesis, it entails the necessary pre formative structures of logical necessity. That the breakdown occurred at a certain point, derives from early necessary pre formative logical structures.
These are only unnecessary a posteriors, or reverse analysis, and progressively they are a-priori structures, embedded in the pre formative human brain. In the sense that intelligence can be edited in both ways, leads to a confused view that they separately intelligent.
Looke at it this way, Nature can be as a preconscious intelligence, a pre formative neural design center, bound to develop in a certain ,
necessary way. It may be that this command center is part and parcel of the object of evolution.
Another example of very rudimentary intelligence, is micro organisms such as viruses, for instance the HIV virus comes to mind here, with its uncanny ability to transform it’s biochemical make up, to change into other forms, to overcome resisting agents. This kind of re-formation, is an example of overt exhibition of automatic processes, which, may turns on a new definition of intelligent behavior. Behavior implies some internal agency causing the changes, and ‘intelligence’ can be inferred.
This kind of intelligence is present in conscious decision making as well, where the better of two choices is sought, based on available data and interpretation of it. The difference between the two hon this basic level, is minimal. Re-interpretation
further up on the phylo-genetic tree, becomes more and more diverse, hence intelligence becoming on the most part associated with post formative consciousness of it.
Did you know i am a druid ~ a nature religion? And i believe in many gods which are personifications and abstracts emanating from a single spiritual infinity, called caugant by 5th century druids attempting to understand the nature of god in terms of the former universal nature spirit they believed in.