A Ha, why are you stuck on this one definition of sender/receiver? There's obviously a problem with my and your definition of "intelligent."
I'm not stuck on one definition. I'll use the term whichever way you like, but you must stick to one definition. You don't get to use it one way when talking about the sender, and another way when talking about the receiver. That's called equivocation, and it's dishonest. Do you imagine your God wants you to use dishonest arguments? Can He do no better?
I gave you the example of artificial intelligence or AI, which you ignored.
There was nothing to address. There are only two reasons to use an example of AI. One is to claim that this definition of intelligence fits the situation better than any other definition one might find, which would be a silly thing to say. The other is to try to make a deductive argument, but I did you a favor in not treating it like that, because it's a terrible argument. If you really want to make the deductive argument, go ahead, but don't say I didn't warn you.
Dictionaries list various definitions for various usages and contexts. When using a dictionary to define a word, you choose the most appropriate definition for the context. You don't get to choose multiple definitions and change at will. Again, that's called equivocating, and it's dishonest.
On top of that, when shown the inconsistency of your argument, you tried to use a meaning of "intelligence" that doesn't appear in any dictionary (the nonsense about intelligence means to "conserve and multiply its species"). You just made that one up out of thin air.
Strictly speaking, a non-animate object cannot be intelligent. Yet a machine, i.e., a computer can intelligently translate a sentence from one language into another. What else should one call it?
Following a program. Programmers use the terms smart and dumb to connote certain functions, but they chose those words to differentiate between relatively basic and advanced functionality. It would be silly to try to use intelligence as it's used in computing to describe volitional agency when there are much better definitions available.
Some define "intelligent" as being able to solve problems. In this life you need to be intelligent to survive. Amoeba is "intelligent" enough to protect itself and move away from danger. It is intelligent enough to recognize unfavorable conditions and form a cyst around it to survive.
Well at least you were honest enough to put scare quotes around the word. Amoeba's are merely reacting to stimuli; they do not have an intelligent mind moving them around.
So getting back to your claim of an intelligent sender and intelligent receiver for this wonderful UI that you've made up, are you referring to the intelligence of a volitional mind, or are you referring to the intelligence of a mindless automaton reacting to stimuli. Pick one.
Bottom line, behind it all there's a hugely intelligent intellect that did the programming.
This is what I've been trying to get you to demonstrate, but you keep confusing yourself by switching definitions mid-sentence.
Here's a Dictionary definition of the word intelligent. Look at 1, 3 and 4:
Pick one of those definitions for the context of your definition of information, and don't make up your own, a la "conserve and multiply its