Hi John
How would the word clever sit with you for what you're describing
instead of intelligent? I think that the problem of using the term
intelligence for what you're describing has a number of problems and
implications which make, certainly me and probably others such as Arlo,
uncomfortable and unlikely to ever agree that what we're seeing in what
you describe is intelligence.
Most people would see certain types of activities of animals as clever
but not the result of intelligence. A butterfly matching it's markings
to some types of vegetation is clever - not because the butterfly has
chosen to do so and make an intelligent decision but because we see
solutions and processes in nature and find them clever. Like the often
heard saying "Isn't nature clever". Do you see what I'm getting at here?
By dropping intelligent in favour of clever we can re-associate
intelligence with intellect. This would also defuse implications such as
"intelligent" design. It's the process that's clever not necessarily the
creature that is involved in the process.
Just a thought
Horse
On 02/05/2010 21:45, John Carl wrote:
Horse,
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Horse<[email protected]> wrote:
Depends what you mean by choice. If we're talking about biological selection
of a mate then sure, there is choice between different biological attributes
which offer the greatest attraction. But these don't involve intelligence
they involve biological attraction to certain attributes.
John:
Well the kind of choice I'm talking about is more basic than mate
selection. It's as simple as "choosing" to match your color to the bark of
a tree. Or perhaps, to fly over to certain trees, and since they match your
coloring, your choices dictate your "natural" selection to pass on your
genes.
These choices are not intellectually thought out. They have a somewhat
random aspect to our inquiring eye. The more simple the organism, the more
subtle the chemical cues followed by the organism's "perception".
But it is this reactivity to environment which I'm calling "intelligence" in
order to distinctify it from "intellect" which conceptualizes and
manipulates the concepts according to rules of rationality.
And yeah, I'd view simple genetic variability in this view as a sort of
choice. Who knows why dna does what it does sometimes? There's a lot of
reactivity to the environment that manipulates genetically and we don't
fully understand how.
Horse:
As I said above, I'm not arguing against choice based on biological
attraction such as a display of brightly coloured feathers or complex
birdsong etc. What I'm saying is that this choice doesn't involve
intelligence or intelligent choice.
John:
And I'm saying, I believe there could be construed a form of undetectable
(at present understanding anyway) intelligence behind the choices that seem
just random to our view.
But obviously, the more complex the life, the more sophisticated the choices
and I'm content to let the limits be defined pragmatically.
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.
If we're talking about hypothetical civilisations then a comparatively
complex civilisation will likely have developed social patterns and
intellectual patterns so there will be intelligence because there are
intellectual patterns. Tricky to prove currently as ET hasn't made much of
an appearance yet!
John anew:
Yeah, and I really liked that film gav recommended about the really
sophisticated and advanced human society that was so far ahead of ours and
yet so much more less complex. So in advanced intellectual achievement,
complexity is no indicator!
I can see where you're coming from here but even something as seemingly
uncontroversial as the term language can be abused and rendered worthless by
misuse. I think that language would be difficult without at least a
rudimentary intellect as it more often than not involves the use of complex
symbolism - it also needs a certain type of structure, semantic component
etc. and often these aspects are ignored when a 'language' is attributed to
animals other than humans.
Agreed. Animals communicate intelligently. Only humans communicate
intellectually and I think I'd define language solely as "intellectual
communication". First you need conceptualization, then you need a way of
codifying and transmitting that conceptualization and that's language.
Coyote's howlings are communicative of emotion, perhaps, but no intellectual
information has been transmitted!
Me Prev:
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.
Horse:
We know where you live John, mwahahahahaaah!
John:
So that's why my moq in box has been freezing my computer!
Horse, you don't got worms do ya?
Well, I have been eating a lot recently and wriggling about in my chair
- but perhaps that's too much information!
:)
Horse
--
"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines
or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa
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
