[MD] expanded list Platt

[Horse]

Hi John

On 29/04/2010 21:32, John Carl wrote:
> Greetings Horse,
>
> Take a deep hit and hold it cuz your gonna need it, I can tell:
>
>   You remind me that,
>
> Laws of biology don't exist except in the human mind and there is no choice
>    
>> in natural selection -
>>      
>
> I understand that the laws of biology are human creations, but do they
> describe observable patterns usefully?  If they do, then we should use them,
> even though they are, "only in our heads".
>
> I mean,  everything is.  So what?
>    

Because there seems to be a general misconception that these "Laws" are 
some sort of absolute. They are observations (observable patterns as you 
say) and I agree that when they are useful we should use them. But often 
when there's a reference to phrases like "The Law of the Jungle" or some 
other such crap this is an attempt to justify something that is 
otherwise unjustifiable.

> However, your point about being no choice in natural selection, I find
> ridiculous from the git-go.
>    

Depends what you mean by choice. If we're talking about biological 
selection of a mate then sure, there is choice between different 
biological attributes which offer the greatest attraction. But these 
don't involve intelligence they involve biological attraction to certain 
attributes.

>
> 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.
>>      
>
> Theory shmeory.  Consider an organism - environment interaction where the
> organism had no choice, hence no differentiation, hence no genetic
> adaptation.  You could argue that an organisms genes result from the choices
> it has made in the past, you could also argue that the choices it makes in
> the present are determined by its genes.  Both statements could be true
> because the truth is, where you choose to attribute causation is a matter of
> YOUR choosing.
>
> But to say choice isn't fundamental to the whole process puts you in the
> same silly camp as the Strange Case of Krimel.  And I'm for
> de-Krimelization.
>    

As I said above, I'm not arguing against choice based on biological 
attraction such as a display of brightly coloured feathers or complex 
birdsong etc. What I'm saying is that this choice doesn't involve 
intelligence or intelligent choice.

> Ok, you can let out now.
>    

Gotta sit down before the rush!

>
> What else you got?
>
>
>    
>>   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.
>>
>>
>>
>>      
> I can't quite buy that either.  There is a sense I get that complexity
> indicates intelligence.  If I come upon, in my thought rocket ship, two
> alien civilizations, one comparatively complex and one comparatively simple,
> I'll construe more intelligence to the more complex.
>    

If we're talking about hypothetical civilisations then a comparatively 
complex civilisation will likely have developed social patterns and 
intellectual patterns so there will be intelligence because there are 
intellectual patterns. Tricky to prove currently as ET hasn't made much 
of an appearance yet!

> However, it doesn't work that way with my fellow humans, who often use
> complexity to mask a lack of intelligence, so maybe that throws your
> calibration.
>    

If they are humans then there will be intellectual patterns and 
consequently intelligence - maybe not a lot though, but sufficient to 
qualify as such.

>    
>>> Horse previously:
>>>
>>> Intelligence is a characteristic of intellect which is attributable to
>>> Intellectual patterns of value
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>>      
> And then clarifying:
>
>
>    
>> 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.
>>      
>
>
> This area is very interesting.  The way I see intellect is that its a
> uniquely human attribute and included reflection.  The process of building
> up meaning is the intellectual process, and you can be a relatively dumb
> person who goes through this process slowly, or a very smart person who zips
> along, and sooner or later both get to the same place - intellectual
> insight.
>
> Intelligence desribes things like memory, information gathering,
> calculation.  Mental abilities.
>    

Here's where I have a problem with certain terms that, due to incorrect 
usage, lose their relevance. Where you describe memory, information 
gathering and calculation you could attribute these to a wristwatch or a 
GPS receiver! Even worse, almost exactly these things are attributed, 
quite seriously (!), to distilled water. Don't believe me? Check out 
some of the websites on homoeopathic medicine and see how stretching the 
meaning of simple terms creates havoc with the use of language.

> But intellect is something that is taking the results that intelligence
> gives, and ordering the intelligence into meaning.  The most definitive
> aspect of intellect is language.
>
> This is Ellul's main topic, so I'm real interested in it at the moment.
>    

I can see where you're coming from here but even something as seemingly 
uncontroversial as the term language can be abused and rendered 
worthless by misuse. I think that language would be difficult without at 
least a rudimentary intellect as it more often than not involves the use 
of complex symbolism - it also needs a certain type of structure, 
semantic component etc. and often these aspects are ignored when a 
'language' is attributed to animals other than humans.

>> 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.
>>      
>
>
> Sorry Horse, not buying.  Show me a watch that can also breed as well as
> walk.  Show me a watch adapting to any ecological niche the way life does,
> and then you'll make some headway along those lines.
>    

Er, that's my point. Something that appears to be intelligent isn't 
actually intelligent. It's behaviour may seem that way because it 
displays a certain level of complexity. That complexity can be the 
result of very simple algorithms. It's still very complex behaviour but 
not intelligent behaviour. Reproduction is important along with 
adaptation etc. as you mention above. This is something that is starting 
to appear in ALife but as computer programs not robotic mechanisms. 
Sexual reproduction is also unnecessary as there is probably more life 
on this planet that reproduces asexually than sexually so I wouldn't say 
that what you're referring to above in terms of reproduction is vital - 
although asexually reproducing organisms seem to have gotten around this 
problem.

> I agree complexity alone doesn't denote intelligence.  Only creative
> adaptability does that.  Like a fly that dodges my swat.  In an infinitude
> of years you may come up with a robotic imitation, but I doubt it.
>   Especially getting one to breed!
>
> Sex, as always, the tricky part.
>    

Only when you get past position 43 of the Kama Sutra! Plain sailing up 
to there as long as you're fairly supple.
But seriously..... As I said above, sex isn't essential (lots of fun 
though) as there are a huge number of asexually reproducing lifeforms - 
think of all the variations of single celled animals, plants, fungi and 
so on that reproduce asexually and thrive. Lots of problems involved in 
terms of environmental adaptation etc.though but life nonetheless. 
Bacteria is a good example - asexual reproduction with genetic variation 
through recombination using conjugation, transformation, and/or 
transduction resulting in genetic variation and adaptability.
I might be wrong but I think that asexual reproduction is possibly the 
dominant form of reproduction on the planet overall, in terms of numbers 
- sex being a bit of a johnny-come-lately!
Dunno about you but I can't see this as a sign of intelligence - 
incredibly creative adaptability though and huge diversity.
I wouldn't rule out robotic reproduction using some form of creative 
adaptation just yet.

>
>
>
>    
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>      
> No, I haven't.  But I'm sure of what you're talking about.  Also, you seem
> to be making my point that intelligence isn't artificially created.
>    

Doesn't seem to be so far but I'm pretty sure that the future is bound 
to be interesting - hopefully not in the Chinese sense!

>
>
>    
>>   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).
>>
>>
>>      
> Well I do appreciate the dialogue.  Hopefully some of "those people" will
> dive in and answer for their side of the debate as I'm curious who they are
> and I get the creeps looking over my shoulder.
>    

We know where you live John, mwahahahahaaah!


Great communicating intelligently with you John.

Beep beep beep beeeeeeep

Horse shutting down for essential repairs please send further 
communications to

-- 

"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa