From: Case (Case@iSpots.com)
Date: Sun Nov 06 2005 - 06:36:55 GMT
[Mike]
All I'm saying is that, if we want to retain Pirsig's label for the 4th
level - "intellect" - then we need to have a terminological distinction
between intellect and intelligence, so that "intelligence"
can refer to the same (non-)thing as Quality, and "intellect" can be
reserved for the intelligence that resides in autonomous individuals.
[Case}
Why would we want to retain this level label especially if it means slapping
another bumper sticker on the Tao? The Way that can be spoken of is not the
eternal Way.
[Mike]
The second, closely related, point of disagreement lies in your (Scott's)
claim that "to say of some process that it is intelligent is meaningless
unless there is value involved, and to say there is value involved is
meaningless unless there is awareness involved, and a process that involves
choosing among possibilities based on estimating consequences."
[Case]
There is a house of cards waiting for a gentle breeze.
[Mike]
While I agree that intelligence (as Quality) entails value,
[Case]
Everything entails value. Thing are all pluses and minuses. They attract
they repel. We like them or we don't. They move or stand still. What makes
intellegence special?
[Mike]
I don't agree that value entails "a process that involves choosing among
possibilities based on estimating consequences". This is because I want to
extend "intelligence" all the way down to the inorganic level, obviously in
an attenuated and rigid form. Amoebas and carbon molecules don't estimate
consequences (they don't have a "temporal buffer", as I think Case would
say), but they do behave in accordance with extremely rigid and predictable
patterns of value. Basically, I want to redescribe "intelligence" in exactly
the same way that Pirsig redescibes "value" so that it can refer to that
which holds a glass of water together.
[Case]
You don't have to do much to extend intellegence where ever you want to see
it. Amoebas are equiped to deal directly with they enviroments. Their
temporal buffers don't have to hold much, just enough information to
reproduce. If you insist on a defination for intellegence try this:
Intellegence is a temporal buffer, the bigger the buffer the better. The
ability to communcate across distances expands the temporal buffer and lets
prairie dog stand guard and warn their neighbors. Oral communication in
humans lets one generation pass its knowledge to the next generation and
beyond: an even bigger buffer. Writing lets us learn from distant ancestors
more buffering. Telecommuncations, digital transmission and storage bigger
and bigger buffers.
I would go so far as to say that the real value of a nice temporal buffer is
that it lets you estimate probability better. Newton used information dumped
into the buffer by Kepler to refine celestial mechanics. This increases the
probability that prediction of future astronomical events will be accurate.
Better information about coming astronomical events improves the probability
that next year's harvest will be fruitful and we can stop sacrificing the
neighbor's kids to the Gods. There is Quality for you.
[Mike]
Now to the really interesting one:
> A perfectly detached intellect, I think, would not be subjective.
Actually, now I come to think of it, this might not be such a big deal.
[Case]
Isn't the perfectly detached intellect what Hume brought up that got Kant's
panties in a wad?
[Mike]
Let me ask you a question: Would a perfectly detached intellect be
autonomous? Presumably yes. So what, then, do you consider to be the
difference between autonomy and subjectivity?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
[Case]
A perfectly detached intellect would be on life support which is hardly
autonomous.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 06 2005 - 08:43:33 GMT