On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 3:14 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote:
> [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? > Well to be technical, I don't "see" intelligence in anything smaller than a fruit fly, because I don't see much smaller than a fruit fly. But I do notice the difference between the fruit fly's reaction when I swat it off my peach vs the reaction I get when I flick a grain of sand from the same place. And that difference, that responsive reaction on the part of the fruit fly is what I call intelligence. > > 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. > This is where a pragmatic definition really helps, I think. If cells have an awareness or intelligence but we can't really detect it, why bother thinking about it? But we should be open to discovering levels of intelligence in more and more remote places as our understanding evolves. Therefore, I think it best we leave the question of undetectable intelligence levels, keep it at "relatively creative response to environment" and leave it at a nebulous and mysterious continuum which we continually investigate. > > 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. > > The key then is *creative* response. Not merely random, but purposefully adaptational and environmentally appropriate, not entirely predictable. > 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. > > I guess it depends on where you want to draw the lines. Personally I thought my little toss off to Bo was clever, "Intellect is the art of knowing and intelligence the technique". But then, you disagreed with my distinction between Art and Craft, so we're not going to get anywhere along those lines I guess... > [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? > > What is it about a city, that makes it something beyond the life of its people? There's created a new individuality to a whole community that makes it more than the sum of its parts, Arlo. You reductionist you. [Arlo] > What Platt 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. > > Well they both have their good aspects and their not so good. I like the real one myself. :) > [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. Well my all time favorite, (tho I'd never post it because it's just so overdone and old and trite) is "Oops, my Karma just ran over your Dogma" Cheers, John 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
