[MD] expanded list Platt

[John Carl]

On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 8:27 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:

> [
>
> [Arlo]
> I don't think we disagree fully here, John. Of course, "intelligence" is a
> characteristic of "life" (biological patterns), but I'd say that its only a
> meaningful concept if we apply it to the behavior evidenced by higher,
> neurologically complex and (proto-)social species.
>
> An earthworm certainly evidences an ability to respond to its environment,
> but
> it does not do so "intelligently". It does so "biologically", and only
> within
> the specific range of possibility enabled by its complexity.
>


John:

Well I agree that we don't totally disagree... but I don't see much helpful
insight in the phrasing "life reacts biologically".  C'mon Arlo!  Gravity
also reacts gravitationally and tautologies are tautological.

But life evinces purposive choice in all it's manifestations which inorganic
patterns cannot begin to emulate, and as I've said, "intelligence" seems
about the  best term for this difference that I can imagine.

What's interesting in using the term this way, is the insight of where in
the biological continuum emotions and intellect occur.  I feel assigning
intelligence to the lower ends of the continuum helps to demarcate these
higher mind-functions and illustrate with empirical evidence the validity of
the MoQ's levels and how they interact.

Seems to me, anyway.

Arlo:


> A worm and an amoeba both respond in this exact same manner, in accordance
> with
> this repertoire.
>
> I know you are going to keep disagreeing, but answer me this: what
> specifically
> do you see an earthworm do that a ribosome does not. Not degree, mind you,
> but
> something entirely differently. And before you say "respond creatively",
> give
> some some specific instances of exactly how a worm "responds creatively"
> for
> which there exists no analogous parallel in a ribosome, or proton.
>
>
John:

Movement.  Sexual Procreation.  Biochemical predator response.  Heck, just
getting their little wormy asses out of the mud when it rains show a hell of
a lot more initiative than any mere amoeba could ever exhibit.

And really Arlo, Protons?   Have you ever had any kind of intelligent
discussion with a proton?

I mean, earthworms are pretty boring, but a proton?




> [John]
> I'm very interested in the idea that rudiments of intellection have their
> genesis in social relations of a certain type.
>
> [Arlo]
> Well, this is my point. Intelligence has its genesis in some rudimentary
> form
> of social activity, but this is only possible in species with a certain
> complexity in neurological development.
>
>
John:

Argh!  Intellect.  Not intelligence.  That's the main point of my
distinction between intellect and intelligence, that intelligence is what
life does, but intellect is what socialized life does.

it's an important point for me.  Don't conflate, now, you bad boy you.




> [John]
> Well I don't think the levels are created from the bottom up, Arlo.  matter
> doesn't organize itself into life, life organizes matter to its own ends.
>
> [Arlo]
> If life existed before matter, where? How?
>


John:

If it didn't, also where?  How?  We really have the world as it is before us
and theories which have been taught as fact so long that they're not even
questioned anymore.

Well, I'm questioning.  It's my purpose in life.

Anyway, without a life to detect and define time, "before" has no meaning.


>
> [John]
> And on up the scale we go, with the levels above creative of the levels
> below.
>
> [Arlo]
> So biological patterns preceded, and created, inorganic patterns?
>
>
John:

See above concerns about time regarding your "preceded"




> [John]
> Why, to prove how smart we are, of course!
>
> [Arlo]
> Prove it to whom?
>
>
John:

Why, academics, of course.  Do I get my  "A" now?