Yes, I understood that you expect me to ask the question. But turnabout is fair play. I wanted to know if it was reasonable to expect a person to actually answer the question honestly, in the best of circumstances. Turns out no. That really is a "gotcha" kind of question.

There are examples within our own bodies linked to, but distinct from the nervous system.

https://journals.lww.com/co-ortho/Abstract/2001/10000/Mechanical_forces_and_signaling_in_connective.5.aspx

A jellyfish reactionary sting and a plant seeking sunlight are also a type of problem solving. Continuing to live always involves some type of problem solving. Reproduction solves the problem of continuing to exist in some form even after death. Evolution is problem solving. Is a "living planet" intelligent, or even alive at all? When a magma chamber is infiltrated by ground water and explodes into a volcano, is that pressure relief problem solving or just the net result of physics? Is intelligent thought also the net result of physics?

Given humans are intelligent, what is the smallest portion of a human that is still considered intelligent in its own right? Can it be neurons alone? If not, then you have an example of non-neuron biological "intelligence" in whatever else, besides neurons, is required.

Are we still intelligent while we are sleeping?

Prediction, without memory, can occur if the intelligence is built into the machine. https://www.youtube.com/@Wintergatan

A jellyfish probably isn't aware that its involuntary reaction predicts its survival.

Who or what built the intelligence into the jellyfish machine?

Where is there evidence of intelligence? In the blueprint.

Um. Not really. Even if the discussion is only about opinions, especially if it is only about opinions, an unwillingness to even consider changing your opinion makes it a pointless discussion. Facts are not subject to change by discussion.

There is technically a new world order any time new world leaders are elected and change policy. I'll accept that as fact, though it isn't very meaningful to me. If you ascribe different meaning to "new world order", particularly outlandish conspiracy, I might need you to clarify whether our shared words have shared meaning. I may then need to retract a previous statement, assume you have a poor understanding of what facts are, and back away slowly as you shout at me.

That is slightly different from being unwilling to consider that I am wrong. It is the regretful acknowledgement that from now on, anything presented as fact by you will no longer receive the benefit of doubt. Your facts are tainted. I may however accept the same facts if presented by someone else in a careful, self consistent way that agrees with my observations and avoids common fallacies.

I like to think that I am always open to having my mind changed. But even if presented with clear evidence in opposition to my beliefs, it takes time to internalize that information, compare it against my existing knowledge and beliefs, consider the repercussions, and formulate a systematic plan for reevaluating my beliefs. I have done that a number of times in life. It takes much longer than a pause in conversation.

Now you expect me to go through that process instantly, and honestly, for a hypothetical question, from a person who is preparing to walk away from the discussion as we speak.

I was fully on board with the OP question when I first read it. Reading through the comments changed my mind. It is an unfair question.

A very tall hairy person that lives in Washington and summers in Alaska joins the conversation. He regales you with tales of tourists trying to take his picture. Every time you look at him, he appears blurry.

A dissertation, thesis, essay, paper, article. Take your pick.

Are there any consistent animal behaviors in a surprise encounter when a human:

Openly displays genuine fear

Attempts to conceal fear

Is genuinely unafraid

Is genuinely unafraid but fakes the appearance of fear

Ok, I didn't know where you were going with "As long you have liquids" but think I get it now.

You make a good point about the radiated energy of the sun only being converted to heat once it strikes matter. Orbiting high energy reflectors could make a planet habitable closer to a sun. On distant planets, low altitude energy absorbers which reradiate IR could raise surface temps enough to boost biology which conditions the atmosphere favorably.

It wouldn't make much difference on a cosmological scale, but to an intelligent species facing extinction, it might be something they/we would attempt at the edges of goldilocks zones to eek out a few more generations.

Assume that is true. A planet of equal size farther from the sun receives fewer total rays because that is how angles work. Yet solar rays are considered effectively parallel due to the extreme distance. So is it the apparent size of the sun in the sky that makes the difference? If distance doesn"t matter, we would be heated by all the stars in the sky and there would be little difference between day and night temperature. Is there a large difference between day and night? This illustrates the problem with describing things using generalities.