Re: virus: Re: Logic and Design ("parationality")
David McFadzean (david@lucifer.com)
Fri, 31 Oct 1997 11:30:13 -0700
At 10:10 AM 10/31/97 -0800, Eva-Lise Carlstrom wrote:
>
>On Fri, 31 Oct 1997, David McFadzean wrote:
>
>> It occurred to me recently that there may be no
>> difference between my concept of "parationality"
>> and "intelligence". Would that make sense?
>
>Not when you're instancing phototropism in plants in your explanation of
>what you mean by parationality. You seem to be constantly trying to
>collapse the ideas of "this is sensible behaviour" and "the creature that
>is doing this is sensible". Acting in one's own best interests in
>not the same thing as knowing that's what you're doing. Of course, the
>latter does help greatly with the former, which is why intelligence is
>such a useful adaptation.
Is knowing what you are doing necessary for intelligence? What if
intelligence is a spectrum with your favourite human genius at one
end and a thermostat at the other? If you adopt this view of
intelligence for the sake of argument does parationality make
sense?
BTW, spending a couple years trying to simulate the behaviour
of an ant in software has given me utmost respect for insect
intelligence.
--
David McFadzean david@lucifer.com
Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/
Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/