On the formation of intelligence from non-intelligence

Mark Phillips (mark@maths.flinders.edu.au)
Mon, 26 Jun 1995 12:01:08 +0930

Murray Hogg wrote:
>Mark Phillips <mark@maths.flinders.edu.au> wrote;
>
>>Secondly, you seem to suggest that it is ludicrous to
>>think that personality and intelligence be derived from the
>>impersonal and unintelligent. It is not clear to me why it should
>>be thought ludicrous. Vinegar is not bubbly. Bicarbonate of Soda
>>is not bubbly. Yet when you put them together, you get bubbles.
>>It is not clear to me that you could not obtain intelligence from
>>unintelligent subcomponents.
>
>I suspect you mean the Vinegar and Bicarb of Soda analogy to
>be "a bit like" what happens when we combine atoms to form
>a brain (ie when we get intelligence from non-intelligent matter).
>However, it fails at one very important point - the gas formed
>by the reaction of Vinegar and Bicarb of Soda introduces nothing
>new to the situation. That is, it can be explained as a chemical
>reaction - a recombination of the components which were
>present in the Vinegar and Bicarb of Soda all along. The
>problem with the analogy, then, is that to be acceptable, one
>would have to assume that the atoms which make up the brain
>already contain the building blocks of intelligence.

The gas formed by the reaction certainly does introduce something
new to the situation - gas! The gas is not there until the two
components are combined. Now of course you are trying to tell me that
the atoms that eventually made up the gas were present in the vinegar
and bicarb all along. This really misses the point. What you have
given me is a theoretical framework which explains _how_ non-bubbly
components produced bubbles. In terms of _atoms_ nothing new is
formed - in terms of _bubbles_ something new certainly _is_ formed.

Now let's look at the question of obtaining intelligence from the
combination of non-intelligent matter. Sure, in terms of _atoms_, the
combination of non-intelligent matter gives us nothing new, but in
terms of _intelligence_, something new certainly is formed.

Now let me make an important point. I am not claiming that the above
analogy demonstrates that intelligence _definitely_does_ arise from
non-intelligent matter. What we would really like is a theory,
similar to chemistry in the case of bubbles, which explains _how_
intelligence can be formed from the non-intelligent. Many researchers
are currently examining this question but they are a long way from a
solution. Nevertheless, it may be that one day they will work out
such a theory - I see no inherent reason why it must be impossible.
What my analogy does demonstrate is that, in principle, it may be
possible to obtain the intelligent from the non-intelligent.
Certainly it is _not_at_all_obvious_ that intelligence _definitely_
_can_not_ be obtained from the non-intelligent - which was the claim I
was questioning.

In Christ,

Mark Phillips.