12-12-2009, 11:46 PM
Hi,
In other fields, consider the information complexity of DNA which is generated from two pairs of bases. Or that of logic circuits, based on two states. Or that of flocking behavior controlled by just a few simple rules. Or the complexity of mathematical systems based on just a few postulates and the rules of logic.
And, very often, the intelligent behavior turns out to be not very intelligent at all. It is often just hard wire responses that have been selected for through evolution. When the situation is changed, there is no ability to adjust for the change and what appeared intelligent now seems stupid. As an example, consider the case of the wasps who, when ready to lay their eggs, bring some prey to a preselected hole. The wasp then goes into the hole, presumably to verify that all is clear, then drags her prey into the hole and lays her eggs on it. If, while the wasp is conducting her examination, the pray is slightly moved, she will reposition it next to the hole and repeat the inspection. As often as the prey is moved, she will repeat this cycle. Her apparently 'intelligent' inspection of the hole is revealed as a hard wired trait. She does not progress to the state of 'thinking' "The hole is already cleared -- I don't need to repeat that step."
We are excellent at seeing patterns, often even if there are none to see. And we often try to explain behavior in terms of our own, often poorly understood, motivations and reactions. Anthropomorphism is probably the greatest impediment to studying nature and the greatest common error in that study. Like Kepler's eclipse, it sneaks back in through the window when we throw it out the door.
--Pete
Quote:It's been somewhat of a paradox of nature how simple organisms without nervous systems accomplish what seems to be intelligent behaviors.I think that this paradox only exists in the minds of those who think that it takes complexity to generate complexity. Consider the simplicity of the rules of Go and the complexity of the game as played. Of course, you could claim, with much justification, that the human in the loop generates that complexity. So, look instead to the behavior of the computer game, Life, which can generate great complexity from simple rules without the need for human input (the initial conditions could be set randomly).
In other fields, consider the information complexity of DNA which is generated from two pairs of bases. Or that of logic circuits, based on two states. Or that of flocking behavior controlled by just a few simple rules. Or the complexity of mathematical systems based on just a few postulates and the rules of logic.
And, very often, the intelligent behavior turns out to be not very intelligent at all. It is often just hard wire responses that have been selected for through evolution. When the situation is changed, there is no ability to adjust for the change and what appeared intelligent now seems stupid. As an example, consider the case of the wasps who, when ready to lay their eggs, bring some prey to a preselected hole. The wasp then goes into the hole, presumably to verify that all is clear, then drags her prey into the hole and lays her eggs on it. If, while the wasp is conducting her examination, the pray is slightly moved, she will reposition it next to the hole and repeat the inspection. As often as the prey is moved, she will repeat this cycle. Her apparently 'intelligent' inspection of the hole is revealed as a hard wired trait. She does not progress to the state of 'thinking' "The hole is already cleared -- I don't need to repeat that step."
We are excellent at seeing patterns, often even if there are none to see. And we often try to explain behavior in terms of our own, often poorly understood, motivations and reactions. Anthropomorphism is probably the greatest impediment to studying nature and the greatest common error in that study. Like Kepler's eclipse, it sneaks back in through the window when we throw it out the door.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?