[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[Arlo Bensinger]

[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.