[MD] expanded list Platt

[Steven Peterson]

Hi John,


>> [John]
>>
>> But I do notice the difference between the fruit fly's reaction when I swat
>> it off my peach vs the reaction I get when I flick a grain of sand from the
>> same place.
>>
>> [Arlo]
>> Sure you do. Who wouldn't. But I'd say the difference you are seeing is the
>> expanded repertoire of response-possibilities the fruit fly has.
>
>
> John:
> Yes you would.  I wouldn't.  I'd say the difference is that the fruit fly is
> alive and the pebble is not.

Steve:
I agree as I'm sure Arlo will. So what is that extra something you are
getting out of saying that the difference is that a fruit fly is not
only alive but thinks?


>> [John]
>>
>> And that difference, that responsive reaction on the part of the fruit fly
>> is what I call intelligence.
>>
>> [Arlo]
>> I'd call it biology.
>>
>>
> John:  Well quoting Platt might not win too many points with you Arlo, but
> he's quoting pirsig in a post here:


Steve:
What Pirsig was trying to say in that quote with much less than his
usual clarity is that when you extend the meaning of the word
"thinking" far enough and start saying that fruit flies think,
"thinking" no longer has any meaning. That is what you have done in
saying that thinking is nothing more than being alive. Why do that? A
useful distinction between thinking and other behaviors of living
beings is lost and nothing is gained.

When a fruit fly can respond not only to such biological stimuli as
being swatted at but also to such intellectual stimuli as good and bad
ideas, then lets say it thinks and has has intellectual patterns for
guiding it in its responses to ideas. Until then, it seems silly to me
to talk about a fly as thinking.

Best,
Steve