GlorytoGod
There is a River
- Messages
- 943
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
yes of course your brain is weak and puny but nevertheless useful for simple tasks like making cups of tea and bottom wiping.
They are not to be sniffed at
LOL good one
yes of course your brain is weak and puny but nevertheless useful for simple tasks like making cups of tea and bottom wiping.
LOL good one
Penelope
weak force testosterone
Path, Tao,
& & &
Some book I read as a kid (The Web of Life ?) put the idea of ecology into my head. And intellectually, from then on, it formed how I looked at everything. It was (still is) my Foundation Concept.
& & &
I remember in my teens making the claim that "plants are intelligent creatures." My friends would laugh. I would point out that a plant's leaves will turn to face the light. "Yeah? Well, whatever that is, it is not intelligence," they would tell me.
Why I was so sure it was 'intelligence,' was a guy I was reading named Gregory Bateson (Steps to an Ecology of Mind, plus other books and articles). He was trying to develop a model of 'intelligence' from what was being learned from the building of artificial-intelligence machines (Cybernetics).
"Information" (to an organism) = "negative-feedback" (from the environment).
Against the background random noise of the environment, the organism perceives a bit of something as non-random, something "different." This 'bit' is information.
But distilling one bit of information from the environment is not itself 'intelligence.' Accumulating information is a very automatic and subliminal process for an organism. A bit of information only means something when it becomes 'liminal' - becomes focused upon by the organism, circled as significant; when it ... becomes recognized by the organism as "a difference which makes a difference." That, for Bateson, is the point when 'intelligence' begins.
How does this happen?
Information is a 'difference' - recognized 'out there' in the environment - which is then 'internalized' within the organism. In a word, information is "feedback" - from the environment.
If the organism then 're-externalizes' this information, it pushes this 'information' full circle. It has created a "feedback loop."
(I don't know where botanists stand on this issue today, but back over a quarter century ago) ...
This is how I logic'ed it out:
I remember seeing time-lapse photographs, over several minutes, of plant leaves turning toward the light. It was not a smooth rotation. It was a wobbly one. I surmised that the leaf turns one click to the left, one click to the right, one click to the left, one click to the right. It produces more chlorophyll when it is 'to the left' over those minutes than it produces when it is 'to the right.' So the leaf now moves two clicks to the left, one click the right, one click to the left, one click to the right. Still producing more chlorophyll 'to the left,' the leaf moves two clicks to the left, one click to the right ... et cetera.
The leaf is not just getting information passively. It is actively searching for information. A full feedback-loop is involved. This is the baseline 'definition of intelligence' for any organism, I concluded. Reconnaissance. Research.
& & &
Even should my model be flawed, I (to this day) believe the basic principle to be true.
In the New Science article which Tao links us to:
Are those single-celled creatures, which put out chemicals into their environment, exhibiting 'intelligence' by doing so?
Yes. I have no doubt. It is how this organism gains intelligence from its environment.
(And this makes it an 'intelligent creature.')
& & &
There is no hard edge between an organism and its environment. The 'environment' is actually an eco-system which ... includes this organism within it as part of its operating system.
And the organism itself is an eco-system - which has intentionally internalized portions of its 'outer' environment, within itself.
The "outside" of the organism and the "inside" of the organism are not absolute. "Outside" and "inside" are relative terms.
This is true of all eco-systems and their organisms. Everything is connected to everything else in some major or in some minor way. Everything impinges upon everything. Even our Planetary ecosystem. (Particularly our Planetary ecosystem !)
When I first read about the "Butterfly Effect" a decade ago, it was not a surprise to me. It made perfect sense.
("13 degrees of separation" - a reference from another New Science article Tao links us to, regarding 'Chaos,' in an older thread within this section. "Self-organized criticality" is how an organism 'amplifies' its own 'intelligence' and perpetrates 'change.' This is another key aspect of an Ecological System ... More on that later.)
& & &
Are human beings the only 'intelligent creatures' upon this planet, as most philosophers and theologians down thru the ages would have us believe? "Man" is separate from all other creatures?
All life forms (from the most complex down to those with a single cell) are 'intelligent creatures.'
And it is due to this very intelligence ... which insures that they are ... connected to us. And to each other. "Man" is not separate. There is one great continuity between all creatures.
(And that continuity has nothing to do with 'the image of Man.' That continuity carries a very different image entirely.)
And, the way I see it, it is hi-time we (all) start living and breathing that continuity ... that 'intelligence' we share with all creatures.
...
Penelope
[SIZE=+1]I really love this! [/SIZE]
I love this interchange between the two of you!
& & &
Some book I read as a kid (The Web of Life ?) put the idea of ecology into my head. And intellectually, from then on, it formed how I looked at everything. It was (still is) my Foundation Concept.
& & &
I remember in my teens making the claim that "plants are intelligent creatures." My friends would laugh. I would point out that a plant's leaves will turn to face the light. "Yeah? Well, whatever that is, it is not intelligence," they would tell me.
Why I was so sure it was 'intelligence,' was a guy I was reading named Gregory Bateson (Steps to an Ecology of Mind, plus other books and articles). He was trying to develop a model of 'intelligence' from what was being learned from the building of artificial-intelligence machines (Cybernetics).
"Information" (to an organism) = "negative-feedback" (from the environment).
Against the background random noise of the environment, the organism perceives a bit of something as non-random, something "different." This 'bit' is information.
But distilling one bit of information from the environment is not itself 'intelligence.' Accumulating information is a very automatic and subliminal process for an organism. A bit of information only means something when it becomes 'liminal' - becomes focused upon by the organism, circled as significant; when it ... becomes recognized by the organism as "a difference which makes a difference." That, for Bateson, is the point when 'intelligence' begins.
How does this happen?
Information is a 'difference' - recognized 'out there' in the environment - which is then 'internalized' within the organism. In a word, information is "feedback" - from the environment.
If the organism then 're-externalizes' this information, it pushes this 'information' full circle. It has created a "feedback loop."
(I don't know where botanists stand on this issue today, but back over a quarter century ago) ...
This is how I logic'ed it out:
I remember seeing time-lapse photographs, over several minutes, of plant leaves turning toward the light. It was not a smooth rotation. It was a wobbly one. I surmised that the leaf turns one click to the left, one click to the right, one click to the left, one click to the right. It produces more chlorophyll when it is 'to the left' over those minutes than it produces when it is 'to the right.' So the leaf now moves two clicks to the left, one click the right, one click to the left, one click to the right. Still producing more chlorophyll 'to the left,' the leaf moves two clicks to the left, one click to the right ... et cetera.
The leaf is not just getting information passively. It is actively searching for information. A full feedback-loop is involved. This is the baseline 'definition of intelligence' for any organism, I concluded. Reconnaissance. Research.
& & &
Even should my model be flawed, I (to this day) believe the basic principle to be true.
In the New Science article which Tao links us to:
Are those single-celled creatures, which put out chemicals into their environment, exhibiting 'intelligence' by doing so?
Yes. I have no doubt. It is how this organism gains intelligence from its environment.
(And this makes it an 'intelligent creature.')
& & &
There is no hard edge between an organism and its environment. The 'environment' is actually an eco-system which ... includes this organism within it as part of its operating system.
And the organism itself is an eco-system - which has intentionally internalized portions of its 'outer' environment, within itself.
The "outside" of the organism and the "inside" of the organism are not absolute. "Outside" and "inside" are relative terms.
This is true of all eco-systems and their organisms. Everything is connected to everything else in some major or in some minor way. Everything impinges upon everything. Even our Planetary ecosystem. (Particularly our Planetary ecosystem !)
When I first read about the "Butterfly Effect" a decade ago, it was not a surprise to me. It made perfect sense.
("13 degrees of separation" - a reference from another New Science article Tao links us to, regarding 'Chaos,' in an older thread within this section. "Self-organized criticality" is how an organism 'amplifies' its own 'intelligence' and perpetrates 'change.' This is another key aspect of an Ecological System ... More on that later.)
& & &
Are human beings the only 'intelligent creatures' upon this planet, as most philosophers and theologians down thru the ages would have us believe? "Man" is separate from all other creatures?
All life forms (from the most complex down to those with a single cell) are 'intelligent creatures.'
And it is due to this very intelligence ... which insures that they are ... connected to us. And to each other. "Man" is not separate. There is one great continuity between all creatures.
(And that continuity has nothing to do with 'the image of Man.' That continuity carries a very different image entirely.)
And, the way I see it, it is hi-time we (all) start living and breathing that continuity ... that 'intelligence' we share with all creatures.
...
Penelope
How did I miss this? Tao, that is what we call G!d.
I agree to everything except I don't see it as being made up of atoms...I see it as the thread that connects, or the space between, I don't exactly know, sort of like the electricochemical impulses your brain uses to jump across synapses...it isn't your brain, but we can't work without it.
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
Great post Penelope. I cant add anything to improve on it.
Wil, I agree with you too, the space between stuff, and there is a lot of space between and within atoms, is a huge part of the picture. There is plenty scope for some science based cognitive dissonance going down that road. Was not neglecting that, just trying to keep it simple.
As for god, he's a monolithic statue with a heart of stone and with a harp in one hand and a scimitar in the other. I think you guys need a new name for what you believe in... not me
Wil, I agree with you too, the space between stuff, and there is a lot of space between and within atoms, is a huge part of the picture. There is plenty scope for some science based cognitive dissonance going down that road. Was not neglecting that, just trying to keep it simple.
As for god, he's a monolithic statue with a heart of stone and with a harp in one hand and a scimitar in the other. I think you guys need a new name for what you believe in... not me
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
Tao's a Panentheist - hoo-ray!
Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!! No!! I just think the universe is pretty damn impressive. I'm beginning to feel like I should be called Brian!
[youtube]
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gb_qHP7VaZE&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gb_qHP7VaZE&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
I'll always refuse to be nailed to any post
GlorytoGod
There is a River
- Messages
- 943
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
it is impressive, so impressive how could it possible be an accident ?
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
Because there is no evidence that it was not just accident.
path_of_one
Embracing the Mystery
Something in me finds these accident/not accident debates really amusing. I have a suspicion both are incorrect. Just my 2 cents in the early morning...
Just my 2 cents in the early morning...
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
Something in me finds these accident/not accident debates really amusing. I have a suspicion both are incorrect.
The only thing that is clear to me is that I have no idea and neither does anybody else. No matter what they want to believe. All the main models crumble under any scrutiny because they are based on old 'knowledge'. People can only explain things with the tools they choose to use and you cannot force people to see that many of the traditional tools are imaginary. I am sure that the current state of science will look equally imaginary in the future too. Yet should we not always strive to work with the best current model that ticks the most boxes from observational information available? And if you can additionally recognise and remember that science is a fluid and ever expanding bubble, and never forget to keep looking at its leading edge then you are at the leading edge in the evolution of human conciousness. Really understanding that bugs without brains talk to each other is more of a revelation than you could ever hope to find in revelations.
path_of_one
Embracing the Mystery
I knew bugs talked to each other before science told me so.
How did I know? Intuitive awareness. Empathy. Basically, my spiritual life.
I don't know if my consciousness is on the edge of evolving human consciousness, but I do know that I seek maximum compassion, patience, and so on- qualities that seem to be helpful. And I learn things- generally, first through mysticism and then later science gets with the program and backs up what was once only in my intuitive observation.
How did I know? Intuitive awareness. Empathy. Basically, my spiritual life.
I don't know if my consciousness is on the edge of evolving human consciousness, but I do know that I seek maximum compassion, patience, and so on- qualities that seem to be helpful. And I learn things- generally, first through mysticism and then later science gets with the program and backs up what was once only in my intuitive observation.
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
lol, I'm not so sure its always in the order you say... but the intuition thing is real enough. The best science often has an intuitive deja vu quality to it I find. But really it is only the collapse of dissonance as knowledge heaps on knowledge.
path_of_one
Embracing the Mystery
However you look at it, I knew bugs talked to each other when I was a little girl. Long before I had much scientific knowledge or even a general understanding of the process of scientific inquiry. There were a great deal of other things I intuitively picked up when I was a child. As I have gotten older, I often either find these things are upheld by science or science begins to generate the idea as something new.
This isn't to say there isn't plenty I learn from science I never had a clue of before. But rather, I recognize the process is, for me, two-directional. Sometimes my intuition plays catch-up to scientific discovery, and sometimes science plays catch-up to my intuition. This isn't to say all people would learn this way. I'm a highly intuitive sort and when I do science it works this way as well. I generally come up with the big picture and a fairly complex intuitive hypothesis of what is going on, then generate ways to test if I am correct or not. This doesn't actually require much conscious analysis (to generate the theory/hypothesis to test). I just need a lot of data and some time-- I'll intuitively get the big picture at some point. I think I do a lot of the work sub-consciously; when I'm very actively engaged in theory I tend to dream about it and after a while it just all pops in my head at once as one giant conscious conglomeration of sub-hypotheses, interrelationships, and generally the design and methodology for testing them. Usually this is mentally stored as a diagram, which I then sketch out and later flesh out. I have a lot more of them than I can ever do something with. I guess it's just how my mind works.
But all that to say that where science ends and intuition begins depends heavily on the person involved. I don't call the intuitive process science- science has a certain way of inquiring about the world and that ain't it. Science is what I do after I've already had the intuitive process at work and had some sort of insight, and then I want some way to objectively test this and share it with peers.
It's worth noting only some of the stuff that comes through this intuitive process is currently testable through the scientific approach. And some of it was not testable when I was a kid, but is now, which is partly why this sort of stuff (the bugs talking to each other) seems new in science, but isn't that new for some intuitive people.
This isn't to say there isn't plenty I learn from science I never had a clue of before. But rather, I recognize the process is, for me, two-directional. Sometimes my intuition plays catch-up to scientific discovery, and sometimes science plays catch-up to my intuition. This isn't to say all people would learn this way. I'm a highly intuitive sort and when I do science it works this way as well. I generally come up with the big picture and a fairly complex intuitive hypothesis of what is going on, then generate ways to test if I am correct or not. This doesn't actually require much conscious analysis (to generate the theory/hypothesis to test). I just need a lot of data and some time-- I'll intuitively get the big picture at some point. I think I do a lot of the work sub-consciously; when I'm very actively engaged in theory I tend to dream about it and after a while it just all pops in my head at once as one giant conscious conglomeration of sub-hypotheses, interrelationships, and generally the design and methodology for testing them. Usually this is mentally stored as a diagram, which I then sketch out and later flesh out. I have a lot more of them than I can ever do something with. I guess it's just how my mind works.
But all that to say that where science ends and intuition begins depends heavily on the person involved. I don't call the intuitive process science- science has a certain way of inquiring about the world and that ain't it. Science is what I do after I've already had the intuitive process at work and had some sort of insight, and then I want some way to objectively test this and share it with peers.
It's worth noting only some of the stuff that comes through this intuitive process is currently testable through the scientific approach. And some of it was not testable when I was a kid, but is now, which is partly why this sort of stuff (the bugs talking to each other) seems new in science, but isn't that new for some intuitive people.
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
path_of_one
Embracing the Mystery
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
Yes in a way it is. Though perhaps a fruit of it would be more accurate. Our brains cant intuit much without observational input to work with.Well, intuition is just a form of observation, is it not?
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
Courtesy of TED...
Bonnie Bassler on how bacteria "talk" | Video on TED.com
Bonnie Bassler on how bacteria "talk" | Video on TED.com
