Lunchtime with Arlo! Yum. On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote:
> [John] > > Life is defined as that which can react to its environment creatively - > choice being the magic word. If there is no choice in the matter, there is > no life. > > [Arlo] > To clarify then, you're arguing that, at least, everything from viruses to > cells, Ribosomes to "Cytochrome b", are all "intelligent"? > Close, but not quite. I would argue that intelligence of some sort is what divides life from the inorganic. Even the simplest celled organism has a more dynamic relationship with its environment than inorganic, and it's the dynamic choice available that defines "living". But there's a bit more to it. The parts of the cell are not what we deem intelligent, it is the totality of being that makes up a whole that we would say possesses the intelligence. Likewise, I'm intelligent, but my individual cells are not where my intelligence "resides". It's in the totality of the package - the community of being which creates the individual me. > > And you basis is for this that these things can all react "creatively". > Well, "basis", hmmm... maybe. I wouldn't call it the only basis, but that would be part of the picture, yeah. I mean, if you can react creatively, you're alive, you have intelligence. Does this mean a guy in a coma has no intelligence? Yeah, it sorta does. At least as far as we can tell. > > How "creatively" do you see cells act? And how much more is this than, say, > a proton that responds to its environment by forming a carbon atom, or > helium, or magnesium? > > Sir, you should really be asking a biochemist these questions, but imho, there's a big, big difference between life and non-life. Why not call that difference, "intelligence"? Seems like a smart thing to do to me. :) > Also, if we go by the MOQ, where Pirsig has indicated that inorganic > patterns have formed by subatomic particles responding "creatively", then > would we not have to extend "intelligence" down to this level? I don't see any useful reason for doing so. For one thing, the observed creativity on the part of the particles is actually the creativity of the observer in looking at 'em differently. That is, they react to intelligence rather than create it themselves or "react creatively". > Even if you side with Platt in thinking that subatomic particles "lost" the > ability to respond to DQ (I imagine such a skill can be gained or lost, > doled out or rescinded?), then at the very least you'd have to agree that > subatomic particles WERE intelligent at one point. > > Nah, I don't think I wanna go there. I like my rocks like I like my metaphysics, Plain and Simple. > How does this help us understand "intelligence"? We've defined it so > broadly as to make it pretty much a meaningless concept. depends on how you define meaning I guess. Yuck yuck, I'm such a card. And add to this Platt's original claim that "Quality has intelligence", and > what's left? Now, by your definition, we have a Quality that exhibits > choice? Not the patterns responding to Quality, mind you, but Quality ITSELF > that makes choices about things. > Yeah... I saw that too. Tell you the truth, I'm really having to think that one through. I can sort of see how it makes sense in a way, as a purposive intelligence as a background gravitational pull creating an evolutionary continuum that is self-evidently, aware. But it gets too far away from my "plain and simple" motif and I don't think I wanna think about it that way yet. Platt's had more time to think about stuff. Maybe I'll get there. I'm not discounting the idea. > > Now if Quality is intelligent, and Quality is out there making choices and > ordering the cosmos (which includes "us"), that puts us right back into the > Great Supermarionette Show that Quality is directing. > Yeah at that point you might as well name 'er 'God' and be done with it. We're back into the whole "absolutizing the infinite" thing that got us into trouble in the first place. I see the problem. > > So on one hand, by reducing the concept of "intelligence" to subatomic > particles, we strip the term of pretty much any meaning whatsoever. On the > other, by extending it to Quality we turn an agenic cosmos into a puppet > show. Because if "Quality is intelligent", and its Quality that's making the > choices, then your argument that "life is choice" is stripped away. What > choice do we have, when its the Intelligent Quality that's doing the > choosing? > > Choosing can only be meaningful in a Quality context. There must be a better way, or why bother? The choice available must be an intelligent choice or why bother? And intelligent choice implies intelligent Quality. Ok, before you splutter all over yourself, the conclusion was constructed facetiously. But I'm not comfortable with either affirming or denying intelligent Quality. And that's probably good, no? I mean, if Quality is indefinable, then obviously I can't define it as either smart or dumb. > To solve the first problem, why not just say "all patterns are capable of > responding to DQ within a repertoire of possibility enabled and constrained > by their level and their complexity"? I know. It's not a bumper-sticker. Exactly! You know me well Arlo. If I can't make a bumper sticker out of it, I'm not gonna adopt it. Unless I absolutely have to because no other explanation works. > And to solve the second. why not just say "intelligence, the ability to > encode, manipulate and communicate abstract symbols representing experience, > is the evolutionary result of this response-to-DQ process, enabling a very > sophisticated repertoire of possibility"? > > Ok, does a dog's whine to be fed represent " the ability to encode, manipulate and communicate abstract symbols representing experience" ? Cuz if you're cool with that, I'll let it slide. But I won't be putting it on my bumper. John whining to be fed. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
