bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Barry W. Kort) (11/07/88)
In article <10007@swan.ulowell.edu> sbrunnoc@hawk.ulowell.edu (Sean Brunnock) writes: > Am I alone in believing that organisms other than human beings > possess intelligence? Does an ape possess intelligence? Does a > sea slug which is capable of classical learning possess intelligence? > If so, then doesn't this render the matter of conciousness irrelevant? 1) You are not alone. There are other intelligent entities besides Homo Sapiens. 2) Yes, an ape is capable of exhibiting intelligent behavior. 3) A sea slug is capable of processing sensory information and using that information to further it's well-being. That sounds to me like an intelligent use of a neural network. 4) No. The question of consciousness is not whether it exists or whether it is unique to humans. The question of consciousness is the identification of the many degrees of consciousness and the ordering of these degrees through the learning and maturation curve. One of the goals a Homo Sapien may reasonably adopt is the goal of achieving consciousness and becoming human. --Barry Kort
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (11/07/88)
In article <41580@linus.UUCP> bwk@mbunix (Kort) writes: >In article <10007@swan.ulowell.edu> sbrunnoc@hawk.ulowell.edu >(Sean Brunnock) writes: > > > Am I alone in believing that organisms other than human beings > > possess intelligence? Does an ape possess intelligence? Does a > > sea slug which is capable of classical learning possess intelligence? > > If so, then doesn't this render the matter of conciousness irrelevant? > >1) You are not alone. There are other intelligent entities besides > Homo Sapiens. Pardon me if I misremember, but it's been two millenia... Didn't Aristotle post an article on the difference between "sentient" and "sapient"? --Blair "...in comp.ri..."
ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) (11/08/88)
In article <41580@linus.UUCP> bwk@mbunix (Kort) writes: >One of the goals a Homo Sapien may reasonably adopt is the goal of >achieving consciousness and becoming human. Another goal is mastery of spelling: "homo sapiens" is *singular*. The plural would be "homines sapientes".
bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Barry W. Kort) (11/10/88)
In article <1394@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: > Didn't Aristotle post an article on the difference > between "sentient" and "sapient"? I don't recall his posting on this newsgroup, but I do recall a discussion a few years ago, distinguishing between the ability to repose and process information, and the ability to collect information through sensory channels while navigating through the environment in which one is embedded. Blair, can you repost a copy of Mr. Aristotle's remarks? Thanks. --Barry Kort
marcos@AUSTIN.LOCKHEED.COM (M V Lapolla) (11/17/88)
In article <640@quintus.UUCP>, ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: > In article <41580@linus.UUCP> bwk@mbunix (Kort) writes: > >One of the goals a Homo Sapien may reasonably adopt is the goal of > >achieving consciousness and becoming human. > > Another goal is mastery of spelling: "homo sapiens" is *singular*. > The plural would be "homines sapientes". Only if our native language were Latin in which case we'd also decline for case. Since our native language, or at least mine, is English I feel free to incorporate "homo sapiens" into English and impose English pluralization rules to it. (Using English plural morphemes etc.) Ciao, M. ;-)
ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) (11/17/88)
In article <136@killdeer.AUSTIN.LOCKHEED.COM> marcos@AUSTIN.LOCKHEED.COM (M V Lapolla) writes: >In article <640@quintus.UUCP>, ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >> In article <41580@linus.UUCP> bwk@mbunix (Kort) writes: >> >One of the goals a Homo Sapien may reasonably adopt is the goal of >> >achieving consciousness and becoming human. >> Another goal is mastery of spelling: "homo sapiens" is *singular*. >> The plural would be "homines sapientes". >Only if our native language were Latin in which case we'd also decline for >case. Since our native language, or at least mine, is English I feel free >to incorporate "homo sapiens" into English and impose English pluralization >rules to it. (Using English plural morphemes etc.) >Ciao, _Please_ don't take this as a flame. Take this message lightly, though I am serious about spelling in general. Gene Spafford recently posted a tongue-in-cheek "Emily Postnews" column to news.announce.newusers: Q: I cant spell worth a dam. I hope your going too tell me what to do? A: Don't worry about how your articles look. Remember it's the message that counts, not the way it's presented. Ignore the fact that sloppy spelling in a purely written forum sends out the same silent messages that soiled clothing would when addressing an audience. "Homo sapiens" is a _singular_ phrase IN ENGLISH, functioning much like a proper name. "Yates" is an English name which looks like a plural form; would it be acceptable to say "one of the goals a Yate may reasonably adopt ..."? How about "alumnus", would you say "one of the goals an Austin alumnu may reasonably adopt..."? Surely it is idiomatic English to say that someone is "an Aries"? [idiotic as well as idiomatic...] To "impose English pluralization rules to[sic]' "Homo sapiens", would not one pluralise it the way one pluralises "lens"? I would accept "Homos sapienses" or "homosapienses" as Englished plurals. When someone quotes a technical term in a way that makes it look as though they don't know what they are talking about (the trivial name of a species is not capitalised, so it's "Homo sapiens" not "Homo Sapiens", for example) it looks bad. It reduces the force of the rest of the message, however sensible it may be, and whether the author _really_ understands what he's talking about or not. Yours for better English, Sannio ardens. PS: if you want to stress that your native language is English, signing off with an Italian word weakens your point (:-).
lammens@sunybcs.uucp (Johan Lammens) (11/17/88)
In article <136@killdeer.AUSTIN.LOCKHEED.COM> marcos@AUSTIN.LOCKHEED.COM (M V Lapolla) writes: >In article <640@quintus.UUCP>, ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >> In article <41580@linus.UUCP> bwk@mbunix (Kort) writes: >> >One of the goals a Homo Sapien may reasonably adopt is the goal of >> >achieving consciousness and becoming human. >> >> Another goal is mastery of spelling: "homo sapiens" is *singular*. >> The plural would be "homines sapientes". > >Only if our native language were Latin in which case we'd also decline for >case. Since our native language, or at least mine, is English I feel free >to incorporate "homo sapiens" into English and impose English pluralization >rules to it. (Using English plural morphemes etc.) > That still does not make sense. In that case you would probably consider it a double noun like director general, but these nouns form their plural by attaching the plural morpheme -s to the first part, not to the second, as in directors general (NOT director generals). Would you also consider Amiens (the name of a French city) to be plural, just because it ends in an -s? Anyway, I think it is not wise to ignore the etymology of words, as it often reveals a significant aspect of the meaning (as in homo sapiens). JL. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jo Lammens Internet: lammens@cs.Buffalo.EDU uucp : ..!{ames,boulder,decvax,rutgers}!sunybcs!lammens BITNET : lammens@sunybcs.BITNET
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (11/20/88)
From article <692@quintus.UUCP>, by ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe): " ... How about "alumnus", would you say "one of the goals an " Austin alumnu may reasonably adopt..."? No, because if "alumnus" was plural the "s" would be pronounced [z].