IP discussion area

Among other things in the book, I'm trying to "grok" what Watt's means or implies by:

"For if the behavior of an organism is intelligible only in relation to its environment, intelligent behavior implies an intelligent environment. Obviously, if "parts" do not really exist, it makes no sense to speak of an intelligent part of an unintelligent whole."

If I'm less intelligent than the person sitting beside me, how do we share the same intelligent environment?

Arkayik wrote: Among other things in the book, I'm trying to "grok" what Watt's means or implies by:

"For if the behavior of an organism is intelligible only in relation to its environment, intelligent behavior implies an intelligent environment. Obviously, if "parts" do not really exist, it makes no sense to speak of an intelligent part of an unintelligent whole."

If I'm less intelligent than the person sitting beside me, how do we share the same intelligent environment?

Well, what you ask is actually comparison between one partial thing and another partial thing (you and another person), for which, there really isn't a basis for among what Watts is talking about. He is talking about how a characteristic of a "part" of something is actually a characteristic of the "whole" something it is part of. If I put my arm in my kitchen freezer, and get it cold, I could say "my arm is cold"... but my arm is me - so, in all simple honesty, it is simply "I am cold" in the end, regardless of specification. Watts is reaching for the basis of connection more particularly between part and whole, as opposed to part and another part - because the latter is excluding everything else, which just brings us back to square one. In your question, the intelligent environment is simply that. It is many different levels of "intelligent" (if you want to put it that way). But either way, the environment simply is all of that, for which you are a part, and therefore you are also.

The final chapters of the textbook I'm using in my Critical Thinking course summarizes what I think Watts is getting at in the above quote. From: The Metaphors We Live By, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (pages 229ff).

The common, objectivist and erroneous perspective is that humans are separate from the environment. Our intelligence (our consciousness or our reason) emerges through our body's constant interaction and negotiation with the environment, which includes also, of course, other human beings. The nature of our bodies, as well as, the physical and cultural environment imposes a structure on our experience. Humans are not separate. Truth (meaning, value) depends on understanding which is the negotiated coherence of our interactional experience with the world. The environment is as intelligent, meaningful and significant as our interaction with it.

Arkayik wrote: If I'm less intelligent than the person sitting beside me, how do we share the same intelligent environment?

Yea, I'm not sure an "intelligent behavior implies an intelligent environment" from the same point of view, but from different points of view. As a relational activity, any activity can be viewed in qualitative terms for both parties from each parties viewpoint, I assume he is talking about the example where its 'intelligent' for one and 'intelligent' for the other - where the lesson might pivot around greater empathy and understanding of others in ones decision making and behaviour, as that would increase the chance of both the actor and environment being intelligible.

Proteus wrote: Well, what you ask is actually comparison between one partial thing and another partial thing (you and another person), for which, there really isn't a basis for among what Watts is talking about. He is talking about how a characteristic of a "part" of something is actually a characteristic of the "whole" something it is part of....

Thank you.

That was almost a double face-palm once you pointed it out... Hide your valuables in plain sight!

Alan wrote: The final chapters of the textbook I'm using in my Critical Thinking course summarizes what I think Watts is getting at in the above quote. From: The Metaphors We Live By, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (pages 229ff).

The common, objectivist and erroneous perspective is that humans are separate from the environment.

Thank you.

It had to be pointed out for me to see what Watt's had already written :silly: me...

Adder wrote: Yea, I'm not sure an "intelligent behavior implies an intelligent environment" from the same point of view, but from different points of view.

"For if the behavior of an organism is intelligible only in relation to its environment, intelligent behavior implies an intelligent environment. Obviously, if "parts" do not really exist, it makes no sense to speak of an intelligent part of an unintelligent whole."

"...Surely all forms of life, including man, must be understood as "symptoms" of the earth, the solar system, and the galaxy—in which case we cannot escape the conclusion that the galaxy is intelligent...."

The issue I was having is that he says we're all part of a whole, inseparable. Therefore, I couldn't see how we could have different outcomes from a uniformly intelligent environment...

Intelligence is, of course, a subjective measure. Still, it is possible to discuss the average temperature of a room in which there are hot and cold-spots...

"...For what we mean by "understanding" or "comprehension" is seeing how parts fit into a whole, and then realizing that they don't compose the whole...."

This is not so much a question as a reminder to some people- THIS IS HERE. If people have a question about the IP and would like to discuss it with the general community at large- here is the place to do it!

But I originally found this thread to post something about TEAMWORK and studying together that I watched today-
https://www.coursera.org/learn/learning-how-to-learn/lecture/KyGCI/the-value-of-teamwork

I don't agree with all of that video and I believe that some of it isn't relevant either to people here. But perhaps someone might feel more compelled to ask questions and discuss their work openly knowing that overconfidence can come from studying alone and not reviewing their own work. Working in teams and together with other people learning the same material can bring out different aspects you might not have thought of, and point out perhaps some errors as well,

Here is my biggest issue I'm having going through the IP. I love reading and learning new things. My personal library has books on everything from religion, quantum physics, how to survive the zombie apocalypse (lol Sorry I had to add that one), and politics. The problem I have is explaining what I have learned. It is also extra intimidating when I read others journals and other posts throughout the forums. Everyone is so well spoken and seem to have no problem putting their thoughts down. Does anyone have any tricks to help with this?

Dessel761 wrote: Here is my biggest issue I'm having going through the IP. I love reading and learning new things. My personal library has books on everything from religion, quantum physics, how to survive the zombie apocalypse (lol Sorry I had to add that one), and politics. The problem I have is explaining what I have learned. It is also extra intimidating when I read others journals and other posts throughout the forums. Everyone is so well spoken and seem to have no problem putting their thoughts down. Does anyone have any tricks to help with this?

Writing is a technique. I usually do a first draft that reads really bad. It might even just be a brainstorm. Then I go through and write while focusing on structure: beginning, middle, end. Then I do a 2nd draft that is designed with the reader in mind. I try to think about what it's like for someone else who is reading it and I may rearrange sentences, paragraphs, etc and I may add or remove sentences for clarity. The final draft is just spelling. You might want to use a reflective writing rubric. http://www.rubrics4teachers.com/writing.php