[John] Close, but not quite. I would argue that intelligence of some sort is what divides life from the inorganic.
[Arlo] Well I'm gonna jump around here, but since you're talking about inorganic out of the gate, let's start there. If you are evidencing "intelligence" on "responding creatively", then please tell me how you see such responses in cells but not atoms; in Ribosomes but not protons? Certainly biological patterns evidence a greater spectrum of responses, but this is a difference not in yes/no but in range. The biological pattern itself affords a much broader repertoire of possibility than the inorganic, and even therein as one climbs in complexity from Ribosome to "dog", one sees a vast increase in this response-repertoire. But the underlying "ability to respond" is there in both. It stretches throughout the MOQ levels. Both a proton and an amoeba respond to their environments, and both evidence value preferences in doing so. Introducing the word "intelligence" to explain this value-response is unnecessarily confusing. Things respond to Quality. (Put that on your bumper sticker :-)). "Intelligence" is a specific feature of higher neurological complexity that opens up a new door for how a biological organism is able to respond to its environment. [John] 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". [Arlo] Well now. You say "you" are intelligent. And your "cells" are intelligent. So why not the components of the cell? Are you saying "intelligence" is an emergent feature of "cells". What is it about "cells" that give them intelligence, that a Ribosome would lack? [John] Does this mean a guy in a coma has no intelligence? [Arlo] A guy in a coma is unable to respond to his environment social or intellectually. And likely his biological repertoire is severely curtailed as well, with the loss of neural control. It is not that "he has no intelligence", its that "he is unable to respond to his environment intellectually". At the moment. We hope that would change. [John] ... there's a big, big difference between life and non-life. Why not call that difference, "intelligence"? [Arlo] Because its unnecessary. You are already calling it "life". Why the need to call it something else too? I think the MOQ would say there is a quite a difference between biological and inorganic patterns, but that "intelligence" is something that comes along at higher levels of biological complexity. [John] 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. [Arlo] You mean "God", of course. The trouble is, if Quality exerts ANY control over outcomes, then agency is removed. Patterns no longer "respond to Quality", they are "manipulated by Quality". If Quality is making the choice, John, they YOU are not. Some have proposed a cosmos that has been ordered and manipulated (nothing evidences value, patterns are just moved around to fulfill a master plan), but "man" is somehow exempt from this. But I think the beauty of Pirsig's thesis is that "agency" is extended all the way throughout the cosmos, it is interwoven into the fabric of every pattern. Evolution, then, is an "increase of agency" in the sense of greater and greater possibility and variance in response, but the core of agency (responding to value) is evidenced by quarks as well as physicists. [John] 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. [Arlo] Exactly, and this is why Platt had to run from those questions again (it was not the first time I've asked him those very questions). What he says points directly to a Qualigod, a master puppeteer that orders and controls the cosmos. To me, John, that's a dead cosmos. Pirsig's is alive and vibrant. [John] I mean, if Quality is indefinable, then obviously I can't define it as either smart or dumb. [Arlo] Sure. Its as ridiculous to posit Quality as "dumb" as much as it is to posit it as "smart". These adjectives serve no purpose but to falsely imply anthropomorphic characteristics to Quality. [John] You know me well Arlo. If I can't make a bumper sticker out of it, I'm not gonna adopt it. [Arlo] Well I wasn't thinking of you there. [John] 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. [Arlo] Short answer. Yes. I'd say so. Perhaps not as robust or complex or the "intelligence" we see in primates or humans, but I'd say its intelligence, sure. [John] But I won't be putting it on my bumper. [Arlo] It'd be the best bumper sticker out there. 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
