From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Sun Jan 25 2004 - 13:34:21 GMT
Hi Paul, Bo, all
Paul said:
>> If, for example, dolphins are to be described as intelligent
>> then it is not a precise enough term to distinguish between the human
>> capacity for the skilled manipulation of abstract symbols and the
>> ability to push levers in anticipation of being given a fish.
Bo said:
> [The above] shows the very problem
> ...we ... mix MOQ's intellectual level with
> INTELLIGENCE. He says "...if dolphins are to be described as
> intelligent". Of course dolphins are intelligent (as that term is
> defined in dictionaries: "The power to learn and perceive ...") but
> dolphins are by no stretch "intellectual". Here animal behavior is
> lumped into the "instinct" category, but if anything is SOM it's the
> mind versus instincts.
Steve:
In chopping Paul's last sentence away from the next, you seem to have missed
the point. Try it again.
>> I would
>> hope that the MOQ would give us an alternative vocabulary with which
>> to describe the many types of behaviour previously lumped under the
>> banner of "intelligent."
Steve:
See? He doesn't want to conflate intellect with intelligence. He wants to
use the MOQ to distinguish the two. I'll give it a go.
"The power to learn and perceive" has degrees, which explains why we would
say that dolphins may be the most 2nd most intelligent animal (Douglas Adams
fans know that laboratory mice are first). Some animals are clearly smarter
than others, but in the MOQ the scale of intelligence is not just a
continuum but has discrete levels that allow us to distinguish types of
learning and perceptions and identify intellect as distinct from other types
of learning and perceptions.
If the dolphin learns to push the right level in the classical conditioning
sort of way (create associations between behaviors and increasing biological
pleasure or reducing biological pain), it is biological learning. If the
dolphin learned it by copying the behavior of a high-status dolphin or did
it to impress other dolphins, it is social learning. If he did it because
another explained the relationship between pushing the lever and being given
food, it is intellectual learning.
Considering the three types of learning that could explain how the dolphin
comes to push the lever we can see that the dolphin could not perceive any
value in the pattern of spoken symbols used to explain why it should push
the lever, so it didn't learn that way. I don't know if a dolphin can or
can't perceive social status or copy the behavior of other dolphins. I
suspect they can to a degree. But at any rate, since they do not deal in
abstract symbols we can see that the dolphin's "intelligence" is
qualitatively different than our own.
Bo said:
> This is right, the MOQ does give us an alternative, but above he
> does NOT heed this. Intelligence and intellect is treated as
> SOM's mind and creates the very same platypus.
The SOM mind you speak of would apply to both social and intellectual
learning and perception which *are* distinguished as explained above in the
non-SOLAQI-MOQ (a.k.a., the MOQ). You keep saying that others aren't
distinguishing the social level from the intellectual level and maintaining
an SOM mind, but that's not true.
Regards,
Steve
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 Jan 25 2004 - 13:38:08 GMT