Xref: utzoo comp.ai:8093 sci.psychology:3739
Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!ucbvax!mtxinu!rtech!ingres!ingres.com!jpk
From: jpk@ingres.com (Jon Krueger)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Fluid vs. Crystallized Intelligence
Message-ID: <1990Nov27.063719.19123@ingres.Ingres.COM>
Date: 27 Nov 90 06:37:19 GMT
References: <7225@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de>
Lines: 30

From article <7225@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de>,
by powers@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de (David Powers ):
> emergence and self-organization.  If the
> units have the right potential for relationships, significant
> properties can emerge through self-organization (or other effects).

Emergence isn't at issue here.  Whether or not properties of one system
emerge from another system (and I think we agree they do), terms from
the discourse of each system still refer to different sorts of things.

Do you believe that injecting dye into brain causes colorful thoughts?
And yet we may reasonably speak of dyes, colors, brains, and thoughts.
But "color" is used in one way in the discourse of brains, and another
way in that of thoughts.

Do you believe that cutting remarks cause people to bleed?  "Cutting"
means different things in the discourse of remarks and the discourse of
anatomy.  Remarks and anatomy remain different sorts of things.

Similarly, you have taken "intelligence" from two discourses, that of
CNS and that of thoughts.  Whether or not one emerges from the other,
CNS and thoughts are different sorts of things.  Sentences mixing terms
from their two discourses are unlikely to mean anything.

Bis spater,

-- Jon
--

Jon Krueger, jpk@ingres.com