[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[John Carl]

Arlo tries to back out, but John sucks him back in:

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:


> When I said instead that its not a change in the response, but a greater
> repertoire to which to respond, its like one responds "with the same level
> energetically" but with a greater range of possible responses. Its not a
> change from sluggish to vigorous response, but a vigorous response in both
> cases but one being able to act from a greater range of potential.
>
> Does that make sense? Because it does to me. ;-)
>
> This is a little bit of a tangent in this thread, so I'll drop it if you
> are still not convinced.
>
>
Of course, you'll also drop it if I AM convinced.  Why beat a running horse?
  So we have a foregone conclusion.

Or do we?

You'd continue I think, if I WANTED to be convinced, but just wasn't yet.
So...

The repertoire of responses are only interesting when actually demonstrated,
so by all means, please continue.

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.

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.

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.

Plants are troubling me these days.

I better go garden some more.

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
>