Greetings Horse, Take a deep hit and hold it cuz your gonna need it, I can tell:
You remind me that, Laws of biology don't exist except in the human mind and there is no choice > in natural selection - I understand that the laws of biology are human creations, but do they describe observable patterns usefully? If they do, then we should use them, even though they are, "only in our heads". I mean, everything is. So what? However, your point about being no choice in natural selection, I find ridiculous from the git-go. 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. Theory shmeory. Consider an organism - environment interaction where the organism had no choice, hence no differentiation, hence no genetic adaptation. You could argue that an organisms genes result from the choices it has made in the past, you could also argue that the choices it makes in the present are determined by its genes. Both statements could be true because the truth is, where you choose to attribute causation is a matter of YOUR choosing. But to say choice isn't fundamental to the whole process puts you in the same silly camp as the Strange Case of Krimel. And I'm for de-Krimelization. Ok, you can let out now. What else you got? > 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. > > > I can't quite buy that either. There is a sense I get that complexity indicates intelligence. If I come upon, in my thought rocket ship, two alien civilizations, one comparatively complex and one comparatively simple, I'll construe more intelligence to the more complex. However, it doesn't work that way with my fellow humans, who often use complexity to mask a lack of intelligence, so maybe that throws your calibration. >> >> Horse previously: >> >> Intelligence is a characteristic of intellect which is attributable to >> Intellectual patterns of value >> >> >> > > And then clarifying: > 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. This area is very interesting. The way I see intellect is that its a uniquely human attribute and included reflection. The process of building up meaning is the intellectual process, and you can be a relatively dumb person who goes through this process slowly, or a very smart person who zips along, and sooner or later both get to the same place - intellectual insight. Intelligence desribes things like memory, information gathering, calculation. Mental abilities. But intellect is something that is taking the results that intelligence gives, and ordering the intelligence into meaning. The most definitive aspect of intellect is language. This is Ellul's main topic, so I'm real interested in it at the moment. > >> > 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. Sorry Horse, not buying. Show me a watch that can also breed as well as walk. Show me a watch adapting to any ecological niche the way life does, and then you'll make some headway along those lines. I agree complexity alone doesn't denote intelligence. Only creative adaptability does that. Like a fly that dodges my swat. In an infinitude of years you may come up with a robotic imitation, but I doubt it. Especially getting one to breed! Sex, as always, the tricky part. > 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. > > No, I haven't. But I'm sure of what you're talking about. Also, you seem to be making my point that intelligence isn't artificially created. > > 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). > > Well I do appreciate the dialogue. Hopefully some of "those people" will dive in and answer for their side of the debate as I'm curious who they are and I get the creeps looking over my shoulder. Thanks Horse, 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
