All intelligent agents, regardless of their substrate, can be understood as needing to respond to a perceived mismatch between what is and what should be.

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

• The simple fact that intelligent agents are collectives and do not continue unchanged fulfills a necessary requirement for an open-ended evolution of intelligence.claim0.839
  Connects collective intelligence to evolutionary potential.
• All intelligent agents—biological, technological, or hybrid—can be assessed via stress-care-intelligence loops regardless of substrate.claim0.810
• How can we develop reliable sentience criteria for agents exhibiting intelligence in metabolic, transcriptional, and anatomical problem spaces humans do not recognize as intelligent?question0.780
• Human cognition evolved to detect agency in medium-sized objects at medium speeds in 3D space, limiting recognition of intelligence in unfamiliar substrates.claim0.777
• AI systems need to be able to deal with reality as it actually is, not with the way that we think it is.claim0.774
  Paraphrase of Cantwell Smith's argument; aligns with Buddhist emphasis on seeing reality without conceptual imposition.
• Intrinsic links between ontology and ethics are evident in how all intelligent agents respond to perceived mismatch between what is and what should be.claim0.774
  Bridges descriptive model (SCI loops) to normative framework (ethics).
• World models provide a bridge between diverse substrates of intelligence—biological, artificial, and hybrid.claim0.771
  Synthetic claim integrating Ha's work with Levin's xenobiology and Tenenbaum's cognitive modeling.
• If we identify intelligence with the manifest expressions of intelligent acts, we end up mistaking the instruments or bearers of intelligence with the quality itself.hypothesis0.771
  Conditional statement about the danger of conflating intelligence with its expressions.