[John]
Of course, you'll also drop it if I AM convinced. Why beat a running
horse? So we have a foregone conclusion.
[Arlo]
Here's your third LOL for the day. :-) Okay, fair enough, my point
would have been better stated as "if you have no interest in pursuing
this, then I'll drop it". How's that?
From your latest reply I don't know if my "energetically" example
helped or not. And, honestly, it may very well be that I am just
using or restricting words in a way that is different from you, if we
are talking past each while agreeing, you know?
I'll say it this way, you and an amoeba both respond "dynamically".
You don't respond "more Dynamically", but you respond Dynamically
with a repertoire of more varied responses. Or, using my
"energetically" substitution, when placed next to a pool of acid, you
don't respond "more energetically" than the amoeba, but the form of
your similarly "energetic" response has a greater potential for variance.
[John]
Let's focus on "greater range of potential". What is
intelligence? What do we say about somebody with a high IQ? That
they have a greater potential to
learn. Intelligence is a form of potential, then.
[Arlo]
Well, I think the converse to "defining" the levels by "activity" is
to define them by the range of potential that "activity" can take.
Bourdieu's ideas about Habitus and agency come to mind. A "social
level" is one where one could broadly define a range of possible
responses to Dynamic Quality that are not possible within the
biological level. That is, a pattern's "agency" is enabled and
constrained by the field of potential (Habitus) it occupies. An atom
will never compose a symphony because that "activity" is outside the
field of potential on the inorganic level.
[John]
And with that understanding, I agree completely that life is that
matter which exhibits intelligence in choice. Not mere mechanistic
reactions, but evidently aware of dynamic choice.
[Arlo]
I'm not exactly sure what you are pointing at, but I think I disagree
somewhat. Maybe its your choice of words here. All patterns evidence
"choice", which is simply another way of saying "All patterns respond
to Dynamic Quality". Static Quality appears when the probability a
choice will manifest becomes increasingly high. Very, very, highly
probable choices are what we see as the most "static" of patterns.
This gets me back to Ant's (I think) use of the term "stable
preferences" rather than "static patterns".
Having said this, I'd say "life" or "biological patterns" have a
greater field of potential in their choice-options than inorganic
patterns, but I don't know if I'd call this "intelligent choice".
This seems to push "intelligence" into a few levels (at least) and
I'm not sure what distinction the "intellectual level" would then
have. ... Uh oh, did I just open the "intelligence/intellectual"
debate again? :-)
[John]
By this definition, are plants "alive"? I can't see calling them
"intelligent" exactly, but there have been experiments which indicate
they respond emotionally and to emotion.
[Arlo]
Well, they self-replicate, so I'd say they are "biological patterns"
for sure. I don't see evidence of social behavior among plants, so I
wouldn't say they are "social". No social means no intellectual activity.
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
