Hi John
On 28/04/2010 16:32, John Carl wrote:
Horse and Arlo,
I'm gonna tackle you two birds here with one stoner.
So roll me a fat one!
Horse says:
An amoeba or a plant is no more intelligent than a spring that expands when
you attach a weight or atoms of hydrogen and oxygen displaying
'intelligence' by combining to form a water molecule.
John:
Don't you believe in the laws of biology Horse? Don't you believe in
natural selection? If life has no choices, then natural selection makes no
sense. Everything would just evolve mechanistically and identically.
That's at least as foolish as moRonism because look around you. Life
obviously exhibits variety and choice. Choice can only be instantiated by
intelligence.
Laws of biology don't exist except in the human mind and there is no
choice in natural selection - there may be with genetic engineering but
that isn't relevant in this case. Just because something appears to be a
product of choice doesn't mean to say it is. I agree that choice can
only be instantiated by intelligence which is why it's part of
intellect. Natural selection is a complex (not intelligent) outcome to,
effectively, a simple set of procedures. These procedures are not laws
in the sense that they will be followed without question. This doesn't
mean that all outcomes will be the same as the starting points and
environments will be different - hence diversity and variety. This is
basic chaos/complexity theory.
Horse:
Part of the reason for saying that a cell or whatever having intelligence is
to muddy the waters between intelligence and intellect which is part of the
mangling of the MoQ necessary to substantiate the idea that SOM is the
entirety of the Intellectual level.
John:
I have no idea to whom you are imputing some sort of ulterior motive of
"water muddying", but it ain't me babe. I'm what you call your "pure
enquirer". I just wanna know. I enjoy finding out. But it has to make
sense.
Absolutely no reference to you in the above. Apologies if you got that
impression. I was being polite about remarks from certain other members
of this forum.
Horse:
Notice how some folks that attribute intelligence to a cell will also hotly
deny group intelligence.
John:
Nope, never noticed that. "Some folks" is too vague a term for me. I know
what I think. I think both cells and groups exhibit forms of intelligence.
Did you know your own immune system is practically a "floating brain"?
Capable of creating chemical reactions to subliminal stimuli, communicating
with the environment on levels not understood, and taking action in response
to subconscious emotional/social input.
Sounds intelligent to me. But NOT intellect.
Again, no reference to you. As far as cells and groups of cells reacting
to stimuli goes, I think this is pretty much algorithmic. Complex
behaviours can be the result of simple algorithms that vary depending
upon the specific environmental cues and contexts. No intelligence
needed. Again, what appears to be intelligent behaviour is not
intelligent but complex.
Horse:
The same will also deny that a machine could ever become intelligent but if
they're composed of intelligent components then they must also be
intelligent. Just because something appears to learn because we
anthropomorphise it's behaviour doesn't mean it's intelligent.
John:
Agreed.
Horse:
Intelligence is a characteristic of intellect which is attributable to
Intellectual patterns of value
John:
Ok, the part about "is a characteristic of" while simultaneously being
"attributable to".
That confuses, but otherwise, clear as muddy waters indeed.
Yeah - I could have put that a bit better. Let me rephrase:
Intellect and intelligence are two sides of the same coin - you can't
have one without the other. It may be incredibly basic - especially if
the social patterns underlying them are also extremely basic (I suppose
you could call them proto-social patterns) but without intellect you
won't have genuinely intelligent behaviour.
Horse:
and is part of a hierarchical system we discuss here called the MoQ. Odd
that some people tend to forget this when it suits!
John:
Ok, here we go again with the nebulous "some people". And I don't know what
suits you, but what suits me if the non-dogmatic pursuit of reasonable
explanations.
That suits me fine as well - what also suits me is not stretching a
definition to beyond breaking point. This goes back partly to the AI
thread in that complex behaviour is not necessarily the same as
intelligent behaviour. This was one of the reasons that I mentioned
Rodney Brooks and the Subsumption Architecture. This illustrates
brilliantly the idea that very simple algorithms can give rise to
complex behaviours and structures. You might attribute an insect walking
as the result of intelligence in some form but Brooks managed to achieve
this without the use of anything vaguely approaching an intelligent
system - the electronics would barely run a watch. Have you checked out
some of the complex structures produced in John Conways game of Life.
There are (I think) three rules and these rules have produced structures
rivalling the complexity of RNA!!! Again, not a sign of intelligence
anywhere but incredibly complex structures which may appear to be the
result of an intelligent process - but isn't. Illusion.
Which you'd think would proliferate on a forum dedicated to the same! But
man, there're a lot of axes to grind out there, eh?
Absolutely. All I'm trying to do is blunt some of those axes. The only
axe I have to grind is one that examines what we're supposed to be
discussing fairly and not disappearing off into flights of fancy or ego
(no reference to you).
Cheers
Horse
--
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an
attractive and well preserved body, but to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, wine
in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what
a ride!"... Hunter S Thompson
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
