[MD] expanded list Platt

[Horse]

Hi John

On 28/04/2010 16:32, John Carl wrote:
> Horse and Arlo,
>
> I'm gonna tackle you two birds here with one stoner.
>    

So roll me a fat one!

> Horse says:
>
> An amoeba or a plant is no more intelligent than a spring that expands when
> you attach a weight or atoms of hydrogen and oxygen displaying
> 'intelligence' by combining to form a water molecule.
>
>
> John:
>
> Don't you believe in the laws of biology Horse?  Don't you believe in
> natural selection?  If life has no choices, then natural selection makes no
> sense.  Everything would just evolve mechanistically and identically.
> That's at least as foolish as moRonism because look around you.  Life
> obviously exhibits variety and choice.  Choice can only be instantiated by
> intelligence.
>    

Laws of biology don't exist except in the human mind and there is no 
choice in natural selection - there may be with genetic engineering but 
that isn't relevant in this case. Just because something appears to be a 
product of choice doesn't mean to say it is. I agree that choice can 
only be instantiated by intelligence which is why it's part of 
intellect. Natural selection is a complex (not intelligent) outcome to, 
effectively, a simple set of procedures. These procedures are not laws 
in the sense that they will be followed without question. This doesn't 
mean that all outcomes will be the same as the starting points and 
environments will be different - hence diversity and variety. This is 
basic chaos/complexity theory.

>
> Horse:
>
>
> Part of the reason for saying that a cell or whatever having intelligence is
> to muddy the waters between intelligence and intellect which is part of the
> mangling of the MoQ necessary to substantiate the idea that SOM is the
> entirety of the Intellectual level.
>
>
> John:
>
> I have no idea to whom you are imputing some sort of ulterior motive of
> "water muddying", but it ain't me babe.  I'm what you call your "pure
> enquirer".  I just wanna know.   I enjoy finding out.  But it has to make
> sense.
>    

Absolutely no reference to you in the above. Apologies if you got that 
impression. I was being polite about remarks from certain other members 
of this forum.

> Horse:
>
> Notice how some folks that attribute intelligence to a cell will also hotly
> deny group intelligence.
>
> John:
>
> Nope, never noticed that.  "Some folks" is too vague a term for me.  I know
> what I think.  I think both cells and groups exhibit forms of intelligence.
> Did you know your own immune system is practically a "floating brain"?
>
> Capable of creating chemical reactions to subliminal stimuli, communicating
> with the environment on levels not understood, and taking action in response
> to subconscious emotional/social input.
>
> Sounds intelligent to me.  But NOT intellect.
>    

Again, no reference to you. As far as cells and groups of cells reacting 
to stimuli goes, I think this is pretty much algorithmic. Complex 
behaviours can be the result of simple algorithms that vary depending 
upon the specific environmental cues and contexts. No intelligence 
needed. Again, what appears to be intelligent behaviour is not 
intelligent but complex.

>
> Horse:
>
> The same will also deny that a machine could ever become intelligent but if
> they're composed of intelligent components then they must also be
> intelligent. Just because something appears to learn because we
> anthropomorphise it's behaviour doesn't mean it's intelligent.
>
>
> John:
>
> Agreed.
>
> Horse:
>
> Intelligence is a characteristic of intellect which is attributable to
> Intellectual patterns of value
>
> John:
>
> Ok, the part about "is a characteristic of" while simultaneously being
> "attributable to".
>
> That confuses, but otherwise, clear as muddy waters indeed.
>
>    

Yeah - I could have put that a bit better. Let me rephrase:
Intellect and intelligence are two sides of the same coin - you can't 
have one without the other. It may be incredibly basic - especially if 
the social patterns underlying them are also extremely basic (I suppose 
you could call them proto-social patterns) but without intellect you 
won't have genuinely intelligent behaviour.

> Horse:
>
>
> and is part of a hierarchical system we discuss here called the MoQ. Odd
> that some people tend to forget this when it suits!
>
> John:
>
> Ok, here we go again with the nebulous "some people".  And I don't know what
> suits you, but what suits me if the non-dogmatic pursuit of reasonable
> explanations.
>    

That suits me fine as well - what also suits me is not stretching a 
definition to beyond breaking point. This goes back partly to the AI 
thread in that complex behaviour is not necessarily the same as 
intelligent behaviour. This was one of the reasons that I mentioned 
Rodney Brooks and the Subsumption Architecture. This illustrates 
brilliantly the idea that very simple algorithms can give rise to 
complex behaviours and structures. You might attribute an insect walking 
as the result of intelligence in some form but Brooks managed to achieve 
this without the use of anything vaguely approaching an intelligent 
system - the electronics would barely run a watch. Have you checked out 
some of the complex structures produced in John Conways game of Life. 
There are (I think) three rules and these rules have produced structures 
rivalling the complexity of RNA!!! Again, not a sign of intelligence 
anywhere but incredibly complex structures which may appear to be the 
result of an intelligent process - but isn't. Illusion.

> Which you'd think would proliferate on a forum dedicated to the same!  But
> man, there're a lot of axes to grind out there, eh?
>
>    

Absolutely. All I'm trying to do is blunt some of those axes. The only 
axe I have to grind is one that examines what we're supposed to be 
discussing fairly and not disappearing off into flights of fancy or ego 
(no reference to you).

Cheers

Horse


-- 

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, wine in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"... Hunter S Thompson