Hey Arlo, the dialogue continues:
> [Arlo] > If by "thinking" you mean as I've already said "the ability to encode, > manipulate and communicate abstract symbols representing experience" then > I'd say this has a foundation in the complex neural structures of certain > biological patterns, but it wouild not apply to amoebas, cells, ribosomes or > protons. > Ok, no. Because I'd like to keep the distinction between intelligence and intellect clear. Abstraction is intellectual. Krimel pointed once to a study which used the fact of which animal subjects recognized themselves in a mirror, which I don't think is a complete or conclusive test of intellectual capacity, but I appreciate the idea, the conceptualization of the problem "where does conceptualization begin?" But intelligence is a different thing. Let's illustrate with an organism a bit up the scale from an amoeba - but not so high on the ladder to be obvious - the lowly earthworm. Now I'd argue that worm, crawling in the dirt, in its choices and adaptations exhibits intelligence in its behaviors. Now could this worm's behaviors be replicated artificially? For the sake of my point, we'll say yes. This robotic worm would then be artificially intelligent, the real worm would be naturally intelligent, but either would be intelligent by virtue of it's capacity to gather information about the environment and then make purposive decisions in the service of continuuing it's own discrete pattern. That seems like a useful enough definition and and explanation of intelligence and is in fact, THE distinguishing characteristic of life. I really did think Pirsig made this point. I'm not so sure Horse is right in his disavowal of Platt's correctness, because I feel like I recall something along the lines of what Platt is saying. And it makes sense to me, regardless, so there's that as well. > > That is, "thinking" is a very specific way certain complex species have to > respond to their environment. I'd further argue that this is enabled by the > sociality of the species. Animals, for example, that evidence greater social > participation also evident greater "thinking". Dogs, dolphins, apes, etc. > all appear to "think" more robustly than fruit flies. This is an interesting > tangent, which would take us into "bee-think" (since bee populations have > been mentioned here). > > I'm very interested in the idea that rudiments of intellection have their genesis in social relations of a certain type. Not bees and ants, but infant socialization which creates the first intellectual insight of "self". > And if you're suggesting that "Quality thinks", then you've just made > Quality directly into Platt's Qualigod. > > Well I don't think the levels are created from the bottom up, Arlo. matter doesn't organize itself into life, life organizes matter to its own ends. And on up the scale we go, with the levels above creative of the levels below. Doesn't take much for me to extrapolate that to some super-human force of DQ which is creative of intellect - smacks of spirits, right? But spirits and ghosts and gods have been part of humanity's story since history began, and dismissing them blithely as mythos misses the point, imo. They are just as real as the laws of gravity. > [Arlo] > Well, saying "everything is intelligent against an intelligent matrix" just > makes the distinction of intelligence meaningless. At the point where > everything is intelligent what does it even mean? Its like saying > "everything is purple". If that's so, then "purple" is a distinction without > a difference. > John: I agree completely. Saying everything is intelligent ruins the concept. Saying everything in it's complete wholeness is intelligence writ large, still has a certain appeal. Arlo: > Of course, you could introduce some sort of scale, which I had already done > in discussing the evolutionary trajectory of response-repertoires. Cells are > "more intelligent" than protons, and humans are "more intelligent" than > cells, etc. But since "intelligence" has already been reduced to "response", > what's the point of the term? > > Why, to prove how smart we are, of course! 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
