[MD] expanded list Platt

[John Carl]

Horse,

You're talking about those dreaded "connotations" again, aren't you!



On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:

> 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.
>


The reason I prefer the "semantic implications" (fancy phrase for
connotation without all the, umm, connotation) of intelligence rather than
cleverness is that intelligence defines the basic attribute and clever the
degree.  We're all imbued with intelligence, but some of us aren't
necessarily all that clever.  (and you can probably guess who I'm thinking
of)




> 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


And quite a clever one too.  But the distinction between creature and
process isn't  valid from either a process philosophy perspective, nor the
MoQ.  Creatures are defined by processional relationship and if that process
is aware and reactive, we deem the creature alive and intelligent.

If not, the poor thing is dead or almost.

If you want to offer "clever" as a signpost of sufficient intelligence
between simplistic organisms like amoeba and more sophisticated ones like
worms, I'll go along with that.

But I couldn't buy the wholesale semantic replacement of one with the other.

Arlo?


John





>
>
> 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
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>