This is, again, mostly a rehash of much of what has already been said in this thread.
(16-Aug-2011, 05:48 AM)sojourner Wrote: > note that you have conveniently disregarded the scientific study I pointed to that demonstrated an advanced computational process in a plant system
Not at all. I had clearly mentioned while responding to that one post that I had seriously considered only the first paragraph. I had not gotten around to the others.
I made that statement in a later comment in response to a post that came AFTER the post in which you mentioned you were responding to the first paragraph alone, in a context where it is apparent you had read not only just the experiment I said you were disingenuously omitting to make your point, but are actually talking about the experiment that came AFTER it. Go back and look at the context of the statement you are quoting. This is terribly disingenuous of you.
Even in quoting me you left out the part that clearly shows the context, which demonstrates you are resorting to diversionary tactics. I've been trying very hard to avoid attributing intentional deception behind your diversionary tactics, but now there is no choice. Here is my full statement, in context:
"Also, note that you have conveniently disregarded the scientific study I pointed to that demonstrated an advanced computational process in a plant system, and are selectively quoting the example in which they are doing a simulation to make the point that it "does not make the plant a computing (sic) system"."
Is it possible that your confirmation bias is so extreme that you were unaware that you were deceptively editing my statement to exclude the part that shows you not only read past the first paragraph, but had also previously selectively picked one experiment that came after the one you ignored, to make a point that the ignored one clearly demonstrates as false? At this point I think you are just not interested in the truth.
Quote:5. I didn't take up your above question (which follows my ">") up until now for a simple reason: my major point in this thread is something else. (See 6 below.)
You said a lot of stuff about my question, but didn't answer it. I think you missed the point. The point of the question was to see if you thought if there is something to biological intelligence that cannot ever be replicated in machines, theoretically. You did everything in your capacity to avoid that question, even to the point of dismissing the value of hypothetical questions altogether. It is not about proof (in the pudding or elsewhere). It is about pointing out that you are simply refusing to see human intelligence as nothing but the function of physical materials that can theoretically
be replicated by a machine.
Quote:7. When a person calculates the 15% tip on a restaurant bill, he is engaged in behavior that may be called computing. Likewise when he works on calculations. Other than this obvious sense, he is not involved in computing at all.
You are completely unable to see anything other than your own point of view. If you could, you'd see by now why your view of "computing" (you continue to use the term despite Arvind pointing out earlier why it is not what we are referring to) is myopic. If you refuse to even open your mind to the possibility that you are limiting yourself by viewing computation as simple mathematical calculations, despite the vast literature on the subject, there is no point to this conversation. We are going around in circles because you are unable to accept the basic premises that have been made explicit.
Quote:8. Neurons fire to produce different behavior in different circumstances. Nothing is gained by calling this computing.
Neurons send electrochemical signals. There is nothing to be gained by saying neurons "fire". Fire is a specific physical phenomenon and the analogy is wrong and NOT USEFUL.
See how that works?
I have a background in biochemistry. You are consistently implying that we are ignoring basic mechanistic biological processes when we see intelligence as involving computation on a scale that we are far from understanding. This is simply not true.
It is also simply not true that looking at the computational aspects of intelligence is not useful. Not only have we already pointed out multiple applications of such an approach that are already in use, but we have also pointed out evidence for why scientists believe that much of the benefit is yet to come because this is a new science. Most importantly, I have already explicitly addressed this specific point, saying that fundamental science does not follow some pre-conceived plan to apply future scientific discoveries in specific service to humanity.
Quote:11. You guys are freethinkers and should at least be willing to consider what I have to say.
And now we are in troll territory. The minute you refer to the entire group as a monolithic entity, dismissing everyone else as unwilling to see your point of view, we must take a stand. Again, let me repeat, NO ONE here has ignored any of what you have said. It is you alone who is doing the ignoring. I have not refuted but have agreed with every single thing you have said about behavioral aspects of humans. It is you who is not willing to consider more recent scientific advances that have gained favor since the time of your favorite scientist.
If anyone should be accused of not acting like a freethinker here, it's you. Do give this some thought.
I think it is time to wrap up this thread, as we are wasting our time in distractions and diversions. I request that you, Sojourner, refrain from such tactics. Let us stick to the topic under discussion. To end on a good note, here are two articles by professor Wadhawan
from his series on Nirmukta
, talking about how the evolution of complexity relates to intelligence.
Quote:"An ant colony has swarm intelligence, just like a beehive. It is instructive to describe its basic (even though highly simplified) features here, the more so because ANT LOGIC has already found several applications in artificial evolution and in computational science. Dorigo and coworkers did some pioneering work in this regard."
"An ant colony is a remarkable parallel processing machine. To quote Kevin Kelly again: “Ants are the history of social organization and the future of computers.”"
And this next article is even more relevant, with more than a dozen references to computation: