[Arlo] This seems to be true, a brain is required for the manipulation of said symbols. But when did I say an amoeba experiences social or intellectual patterns? I said it experiences biological patterns (and even quite unsophisticated ones, compared to a dolphin, as I said to Kevin). But experience, it does (says Yoda-Arlo).
[Case] I am less inclined to deny "experience" to an amoeba than to a rock. Even though the amoeba responses are hardwired the wiring is modified by experience. Ron white blood cells are problematic because they do change permanently as a result of pathogens in the blood stream with the resultant production of antibodies and so forth. [Arlo] Well, I'm not sure how "optimum" doesn't imply choice (in this sense). The amoeba would have to experience that Point B was "better" than Point A, and then "choose" Point B. It wouldn't be a symbolic "choice", of course, indicating that it would be visible only by virtue of response, not of intent or reflection (which require symbolic activity). [Case] I think the issue of choice is critical here. At thermostat can be set to "decide" when to turn on and when to turn off but is this a "choice" in any meaningful way? Same deal with amoebae. They have feedback loops not decision making capability. [Arlo] I'm not sure its anthropomorphism, which for me suggests again an extra-natural "man" who experiences and values apart from a nature that does not experience or value. What it does, for me, is embed man IN nature (or refuse to separate the two). Experience and value (Quality) is manifest from Quantum Theory (intellectual value) all the way down to the quanta themselves (inorganic value). [Case] To me anthropomorphism is ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman entities. I do it all the time. It is a useful short cut when talking about computers, amoebas and all manner of things but it is an oversimplification or perhaps an overcomplication that serves its purpose in casual conversation. But there is a temptation to push it too far and we see that here in these discussions all the time. [Arlo] The edges are always fascinating, and typically the place where intellection breaks down. But you could say the same about "man", could you not? That we respond in purely electrochemical ways. Even our most complex thoughts rest on electrochemical action. I'm not sure what this reductionism does, except posit two levels, "man" and "everything else". [Case] It is refreshing to be reminded that we are the sum of our electro-chemical interactions. That does not happen to me often. [Case] This is where I like Whitehead's notion of occasions or events as the fundamental units of process. [Arlo] You'd have to explain to me the difference. [Case] I am still working on Whitehead he is tough to get a handle on and I am only grasping at one of his straws. I suppose I am hung up on the implications of the term "experience." It suggests to me a subject on object. It suggests some ability to process or represent the experience in some way. An event just occurs. Changes in state may occur as the result of an event but an event does not imply any unquantifiable values. Experiences in my view are subsets of events. [Case] Experience implies memory and learning; the integrations of the past with the present. [Arlo] Not to me it doesn't. Reflective experience does, but even that amoeba experiences value. [Case] This bleed over from reflection is what troubles me. [Arlo] I understand this concern, and said the same thing about the word "moral". But I think positing "value-experience" (Quality) as a natural process from quanta to Quantum Theory represents a significant improvement over not doing so. My opinion only, of course. [Case] If the use of the term value were applied to inorganic systems especially and to primitive biological systems in a quantitative sense I would be fine with it. If the notion of quantitative value were bleeding upwards to the other levels, I would rejoice. But what seems to happen is that the fuzzy meanings of the term infect the lower levels. I could be wrong here but I sense you have some level of uneasiness over this as well. Sure one can make the necessary translations in whatever terms are used to extract appropriate meaning. But the whole point of removing fuzzy values in the first place was clarity. Reintroducing them just seems to me to be remuddying the water. I am throwing this in here at the end partly because it is tangentially appropriate and partly because it cracks me up. __________________________________________________ Single Cell Preface Amoebae leave no fossils. They haven't any bones. (No teeth, no belt buckles, no wedding rings.) It is impossible, therefore, to determine how long amoebae have been on Earth. Quite possibly they have been here since the curtain opened. Amoebae may even have dominated the stage, early in the first act. On the other hand, they may have come into existence only three years--or three days or three minutes--before they were discovered by Anton van Leenwenhoek in 1674. It can't be proven either way. One thing is certain, however: because amoebae reproduce by division, endlessly, passing everything on yet giving up nothing, the first amoebae that ever lived is still alive. Whether four billion years old or merely three hundred, he she is with us today. Where? Well, the first amoeba may be floating on his/her back in a luxurious pool in Hollywood, California. The first amoeba may be hiding among the cattail roots and peepers in the muddy shallows of Siwash Lake. The first amoeba may recently have dripped down your leg. It is pointless to speculate. The first amoeba, like the last and the one after that, is here, there and everywhere, for its vehicle, its medium, its essence is water. Water--the ace of elements. Water dives from the clouds without parachute, wings or safety net. Water runs over the steepest precipice and blinks not a lash. Water is buried and rises again; water walks on fire and fire gets the blisters. Stylishly composed in any situation--solid, gas or liquid--speaking in penetrating dialects understood by all things animal, vegetable or mineral water travels intrepidly through four dimensions, sustaining (Kick a lettuce in the field and it will yell "Water!"), destroying (The Dutch boy's finger remembered the view from Ararat) and creating (It has even been said that human beings were invented by water as a device for transporting itself from one place to another, but that's another story). Always in motion, ever-flowing (whether at steam rate or glacier speed), rhythmic, dynamic, ubiquitous, changing and working its changes, a mathematics turned wrong side out, a philosophy in reverse, the ongoing odyssey of water is virtually irresistible. And wherever water goes, amoebae go along for the ride. -Tom Robbins - Even Cowgirls Get the Blues. 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
