[MD] expanded list Platt

[Horse]

Hi John

How would the word clever sit with you for what you're describing 
instead of intelligent? I think that the problem of using the term 
intelligence for what you're describing has a number of problems and 
implications which make, certainly me and probably others such as Arlo, 
uncomfortable and unlikely to ever agree that what we're seeing in what 
you describe is intelligence.
Most people would see certain types of activities of animals as clever 
but not the result of intelligence. A butterfly matching it's markings 
to some types of vegetation is clever - not because the butterfly has 
chosen to do so and make an intelligent decision but because we see 
solutions and processes in nature and find them clever. Like the often 
heard saying "Isn't nature clever". Do you see what I'm getting at here? 
By dropping intelligent in favour of clever we can re-associate 
intelligence with intellect. This would also defuse implications such as 
"intelligent" design. It's the process that's clever not necessarily the 
creature that is involved in the process.

Just a thought

Horse



On 02/05/2010 21:45, John Carl wrote:
> Horse,
>
> On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Horse<horse at darkstar.uk.net>  wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> John:
>
> Well the kind of choice I'm talking about is more basic than mate
> selection.  It's as simple as "choosing" to match your color to the bark of
> a tree.  Or perhaps, to fly over to certain trees, and since they match your
> coloring, your choices dictate your "natural" selection to pass on your
> genes.
>
> These choices are not intellectually thought out.  They have a somewhat
> random aspect to our inquiring eye.  The more simple the organism, the more
> subtle the chemical cues followed by the organism's "perception".
>
> But it is this reactivity to environment which I'm calling "intelligence" in
> order to distinctify it from "intellect" which conceptualizes and
> manipulates the concepts according to rules of rationality.
>
> And yeah, I'd view simple genetic variability in this view as a sort of
> choice.  Who knows why dna does what it does sometimes?  There's a lot of
> reactivity to the environment that manipulates genetically and we don't
> fully understand how.
>
> Horse:
>
> 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.
>
> John:
>
> And I'm saying, I believe there could be construed a form of undetectable
> (at present understanding anyway) intelligence behind the choices that seem
> just random to our view.
>
> But obviously, the more complex the life, the more sophisticated the choices
> and I'm content to let the limits be defined pragmatically.
>
>
>
>    
>>> 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!
>>
>>
>>      
> John anew:
>
> Yeah, and I really liked that film gav recommended about the really
> sophisticated and advanced human society that was so far ahead of ours and
> yet so much more less complex.   So in advanced intellectual achievement,
> complexity is no indicator!
>
>
>    
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>      
> Agreed.  Animals communicate intelligently.  Only humans communicate
> intellectually and I think I'd define language solely as "intellectual
> communication".  First you need conceptualization, then you need a way of
> codifying and transmitting that conceptualization and that's language.
>
> Coyote's howlings are communicative of emotion, perhaps, but no intellectual
> information has been transmitted!
>
>
>    
>>
>>      
>>> Me Prev:
>>> 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.
>> Horse:
>> We know where you live John, mwahahahahaaah!
>>
>>
>>      
> John:
>
> So that's why my moq in box has been freezing my computer!
>
> Horse, you don't got worms do ya?
>    

Well, I have been eating a lot recently and wriggling about in my chair 
- but perhaps that's too much information!

:)

Horse

-- 

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