When we qualify what happens to have intelligence, we look for a few signs.  Obviously, one of those signs is how well it can communicate with us.  For some, perhaps this sign is superfluous or taken for granted, as without communication how can you assess intelligence or the lack of it.. of course, you could say that "communication" always happens and sorting out intelligence from chaos is the goal, or in some cases from artificial intelligence..  i think in both these cases it stems down to finding an increase in what we call correlation that keeps increasing as the two parties communicate and thus adds light to each other.

So you see, even if the medium is analytical, which it isn't always (you'd have to be, say, typing to an alien from space on a dumb-terminal..), the correlation-aspect is still abstract and 'light' might as well be light, or it's a wavepool..

In any case, buying the wavepool theory or not, the point is that we tend to recognize intelligence in beings that are more similar to us.  Say, for example, that on Earth there is much life, but only some of it habitates brains.  Obviously these species are going to have a set of expression-mannerisms that corresponds to the utility of brains for a biological being.  In other words, it'll look like someone who has a nervous system and especially a central one.  Now..

If a plant has life, you won't see it because you can't communicate with it.  Obviously you *might* be able to, but why wouldn't you?  Because you're used to comingling with other species who have brains.  This is not so much a problem if your left and right hemispheres are integrated well, but nearly everybody is drowned in language anyway.

So, you might just sense something from the plant, a vibrancy.  Sure, maybe it's obviously life, and it's life in the scientifically technical sense (read: pure tripe that almost correlates with anything at all), but what about its intelligence..?

Imagine, for a second, that a) it's intelligent, b) its intelligence is (obviously, of course..) expressed in its movements, and c) it's expressed in a way that you don't recognize for some reason, such as 1) it's simply in modalities you can't imagine, 2) you write it off as randomness or normal biological processes (which are, by the way, intelligent) because you lack the keenness and/or willingness to see through it to some kind of mental and/or spiritual connection, 3) it 'moves' too slowly, 4) it 'moves' too quickly, or 5) it's just not that interested in moving volitionally much at all.

So now, a plant very well could be intelligent, *especially* if you consider the fact that the biochemical processes themselves are intelligent.. which is an assumption, yes, but I'm telling you it's so.  Everything is life, and intelligence is a part of that.  Even matter is alive, and it has intelligence but it's not aware that it's aware.  'An interesting theory,' you might say, but how can you disprove it, and isn't it more parsimonious than a dualistic one in which we deny some elements of reality of the right to life?

If we consider that intelligence at least *correlates* with physical activity or processes in some way, could we say that a plasmic entity with internal cycles and rhythms and its own layers of diverse materials, warmths and spinning speeds of the liquids could be, itself, intelligent?

Of course it could!  And it is.  Plasma, in fact, 'moves around' faster than normal matter - the other three states - so your Sun is likely to be more alive, relatively to the animals, plants and fungi on Earth.  But at least the Sun doesn't have water. ;)  Speaking of 'moving around', the electricity impulsing between neurons in your brain works faster than just about anything else in your body -- and is it no coincidence that we associate the brain with the center of being, though it is debatable..;)

Speaking of which, the *whole body* is alive, and it's not just a hodge-podge of unrelated aspects; nothing is unrelated.  And emotions can get carried in the body, and he or she uses intelligence to manipulate individual cells too.  siigh.

So that's how the 'Sol' *might* be real, in a nutshell.  How I know it is a completely different matter..
How do I know that Sol is an apt name for him, if (he is) he's intelligent (and alive)?  Well, the answer is not any training in mythology or even a bothering to look into Wikipedia; the answer is that it sounds good / it has an aesthetic ring or quality to it.  That makes it an apt name, and all the details can fill themselves in.