[John]
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.
[Arlo]
Sure you do. Who wouldn't. But I'd say the difference you are seeing
is the expanded repertoire of response-possibilities the fruit fly
has. But as each is sent careening off your arm, both respond to the
environment within their particular capacities. Didn't Pirsig say
that "gravity" is simply an "inorganic value preference? For the
inorganic pattern, what we see as "gravity" is simply a very stable
pattern of preference.
[John]
And that difference, that responsive reaction on the part of the
fruit fly is what I call intelligence.
[Arlo]
I'd call it biology.
[John]
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.
[Arlo]
I'd caution here that continuing to redefine "intelligence" to reach
lower and lower patterns, or even to describe Quality itself, renders
to term both meaningless and absurd.
For example, if you want to say "cells are intelligent", you have to
explain exactly what constitutes evidence for that, but would be
something that would also not apply to Ribosomes or carbon atoms. If
you say "respond creatively", I'd say again to explain to me the ways
a cell can "respond creatively" that a Ribosome could not. When you
start getting closer and closer to "respond to its environment", we
are in agreement.
And, backtracking here, I'd ask how you respond to Pirsig's
implication that the formation of carbon atoms was an act of
"creative response" on the part of subatomic particles. Where they
"intelligent" back then? Did they "lose" this ability? How? Where did
this "intelligence" go? Where did it reside?
[John]
The key then is *creative* response. Not merely random, but
purposefully adaptational and environmentally appropriate, not
entirely predictable.
[Arlo]
Well, again, this is pretty much how Pirsig described the appearance
of carbon atoms from subatomic particles. What say you?
[John]
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]
Well, I wasn't playing the role of reductionist. You had said that
you agreed that cells (which constitute the human body) have an
intelligence even as their larger collective (person) has its own
intelligence. But you said that Ribosomes couldn't be intelligent
because they are just a part of a cell. So I was asking what's the
difference here?
I'm also thinking of larger macrotic structures in the body. Does
"intelligence" just skip from cells to "species"? What about your
heart? Is it "intelligent"?
[John]
Well they both have their good aspects and their not so good.
[Arlo]
Yeah, I know a cosmos where some Grand Puppeteer makes everything
"just so" is comforting and all that. But its ultimately a dead
cosmos. Like that Jim Carey film The Truman Show.
Again, if Quality is doing the choosing, then you are not.
[John]
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".
[Arlo]
I saw one the other day that made me chuckle.
"If Liberals Hated America, They'd Vote Republican."
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
