Secret Megalopolis of Ants Uncovered

[Night FM]

 

[exchemist]

24 minutes ago, Night FM said:

 

You need to summarise this video and explain what it is you want to discuss. 

Edited September 1 by exchemist

[Night FM]

18 minutes ago, exchemist said:

You need to summarise this video and explain what it is you want to discuss. 

I just thought it was cool, honestly.

[exchemist]

18 minutes ago, Night FM said:

I just thought it was cool, honestly.

This is a discussion forum.

[Sensei]

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

You need to summarise this video and explain what it is you want to discuss. 

The mass murder of millions of ants..

 

2 hours ago, Night FM said:

I just thought it was cool, honestly.

Didn't you just recently ask for a definition of evil? Now you say evil is cool..

 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Rule 2.7 says, in part, 

…members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone.

 

[MigL]

The story by C Stephenson - Leiningen Versus The Ants comes to mind ...

[Luc Turpin]

Collective consciousness - Jung

[joigus]

I just hope the ants had already moved before any excavations took place.

3 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Collective consciousness - Jung

I prefer the less-glorified terms of swarm intelligence or behavioural algorithm.  

[Luc Turpin]

11 minutes ago, joigus said:

 

I prefer the less-glorified terms of swarm intelligence or behavioural algorithm.  

Ascertained from a mechanistic point of view

[joigus]

Just now, Luc Turpin said:

Ascertained from a mechanistic point of view

Admittedly so. Provided you extend it to quantum-mechanistic, IOW, physical.

Quote

When asked if ants are aware of what they're doing when they dig and build these complex structures, Parker calls it a behavioral algorithm. "That algorithm does not exist within a single ant," Parker says. "It's this emergent colony behavior of all these workers acting like a superorganism. How that behavioral program is spread across the tiny brains of all these ants is a wonder of the natural world we have no explanation for."

From,

https://scoop.upworthy.com/scientists-excavate-an-underground-ant-city-that-is-equivalent-to-the-great-wall-of-china-nature-590517-590517-590517-590517-590517-590517-590517

Interesting in connection to OP's Brazilian ant megalopolis.

Another quote, hopefully interesting to spark some conversation:

Quote

The way in which animals can coordinate their behaviours has always fascinated and intrigued the humans, the way in which thousand of birds can fly together like a single organism, the complex bee structure or the perfect syncronized flashing among fireflies have been study object since ancient time.

[...]

The expression Swarm Intelligence was introduced by Gerardo Beni, a professor of electrical engineering at University of California and Jing Wang in 1989 in the context of cellular robotic systems.
The concept infact initially was employed in work on artificial intelligence, and then applicated at biological systems.

From,

https://www.swarm-intelligence.it/wordpress/what-is-swarm-intelligence/

Perhaps I can interest you in that as a topic of discussion derived from your video, @Night FM?

[Luc Turpin]

14 minutes ago, joigus said:

Admittedly so. Provided you extend it to quantum-mechanistic, IOW, physical.

From,

https://scoop.upworthy.com/scientists-excavate-an-underground-ant-city-that-is-equivalent-to-the-great-wall-of-china-nature-590517-590517-590517-590517-590517-590517-590517

Interesting in connection to OP's Brazilian ant megalopolis.

Another quote, hopefully interesting to spark some conversation:

From,

https://www.swarm-intelligence.it/wordpress/what-is-swarm-intelligence/

Perhaps I can interest you in that as a topic of discussion derived from your video, @Night FM?

Brought to us by spontaneity……..I believe not

as Stephen Hawking once said…..what breathes fire into the equations

[joigus]

42 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Brought to us by spontaneity……..I believe not

as Stephen Hawking once said…..what breathes fire into the equations

Mindless robots can bring about the illusion of purpose.

Stephen Hawking meant what makes the cosmological constant, and other constants of Nature, not behaviour as an emergent pattern:

Quote

Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing

(My emphasis.)

IOW, "makes a universe" not "makes a mind"...

[Sensei]

5 minutes ago, joigus said:

Mindless robots can bring about the illusion of purpose.

..try to beat the chess algorithm..

 

[joigus]

47 minutes ago, Sensei said:

..try to beat the chess algorithm..

 

Well, it depends on what it means "to beat".  If it means "simpler", it's possible that the program inside an ant's brain and endocrine system can be tackled by just a handful of code lines in the equivalent computer program. I actually don't know, so maybe that's an interesting talking point.

Edited September 1 by joigus
minor correction

[Luc Turpin]

5 hours ago, joigus said:

Mindless robots can bring about the illusion of purpose.

Stephen Hawking meant what makes the cosmological constant, and other constants of Nature, not behaviour as an emergent pattern:

(My emphasis.)

IOW, "makes a universe" not "makes a mind"...

1- mindless robots without self learning programs-algorithms bring about the illusion of purpose! Really? Two or more objects bumping randomly into each other give rise to the appearance of purpose? 

2- the universe is made of matter and mind is apparently an emergent property of matter. So, Any equation for the universe or matter in the universe would be subject to the same conditions.  What then breathes fire into them?

3- so, are you saying that mind is separate from the universe? 
 

 

 

[joigus]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

1- mindless robots without self learning programs-algorithms bring about the illusion of purpose! Really? Two or more objects bumping randomly into each other give rise to the appearance of purpose? 

Does any one of your neurons have a whole map of your purpose in life? Are 86 billion neurons more than two? Yes? OK, then more than two neurons bumping into each other can give rise to purpose. "Randomly" is just a misinterpretation on your part. Glial growth occurs in correlation to "regularities your neurons bump into" rather than being a one-off event, as you seem to suggest.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

2- the universe is made of matter and mind is apparently an emergent property of matter. So, Any equation for the universe or matter in the universe would be subject to the same conditions.  What then breathes fire into them?

 

"Breathe fire into" is just a metaphor. What do you mean? Didn't you understand my qualifications in that sense?:

6 hours ago, joigus said:

Stephen Hawking meant what makes the cosmological constant, and other constants of Nature, not behaviour as an emergent pattern:

 

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

3- so, are you saying that mind is separate from the universe? 

No. I assume --and this is just a wild guess--, that's what you are saying. Actually, that's what you are saying. Here:

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

the universe is made of matter and mind is apparently an emergent property of matter.

I'd rather say "the universe is made of matter and mind" is (most likely) just an illusion.

Let me be fastidiously clear: What I mean is that ants building a megalopolis display a behaviour that's not programmed in each and every one of their genetic codes separately, or even their brains and the chemicals in their organic fluids. No matter how clever a programmer might be, no matter how subtle and seasoned in reading code, he or she would be totally unable to read into any of those things the elaborate and intricate result of an ant megalopolis, just by reading the code. It's just not coded there. That's emergence for you.

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, joigus said:

I'd rather say "the universe is made of matter and mind" is (most likely) just an illusion.

The universe was here before there were minds, so it’s not like the latter is a necessary ingredient 

[joigus]

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

The universe was here before there were minds, so it’s not like the latter is a necessary ingredient 

It's certainly not. But being human is particularly misleading in this respect: How can mind be contingent? It must have been there all along.

[geordief]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

The universe was here before there were minds, so it’s not like the latter is a necessary ingredient 

If the universe was to begin and end in endless cycles (which is not anything of a consensus as far as I know) then would you have the chicken and egg question** as to which came first  -or was more consequential?

Would the question  be as to whether you could as well say that the material universe emerged from a  "mental" universe?

God knows there would be no way to find an answer other than whether it could be disproved.

 

**(I think I understand that the actual chicken /egg question is not paradoxical and that -well I can't remember the answer but was it "the egg"?)

[Luc Turpin]

11 hours ago, joigus said:

Does any one of your neurons have a whole map of your purpose in life? 

Part of a single neurone’s purpose is to connect and communicate. The whole map thing supposedly comes with the trillion connections.

11 hours ago, joigus said:OK, then more than two neurons bumping into each other can give rise to purpose. 

Neurones can give rise to purpose, but not inanimate objects, which was my original statement. 
 

11 hours ago, joigus said:

“Randomly" is just a misinterpretation on your part. Glial growth occurs in correlation to "regularities your neurons bump into" rather than being a one-off event, as you seem to suggest.

It either began randomly or not randomly, no two ways about it. The “regularities of bumps” came after

11 hours ago, joigus said:

"Breathe fire into" is just a metaphor. What do you mean? 

Do you get a universe from writing symbols on a chalk board? What turns equations into the real thing? That is the fire.

11 hours ago, joigus said:

. Didn't you understand my qualifications in that sense?:

I understood your qualifications; i just disagree with them

 

12 hours ago, joigus said:

No. I assume --and this is just a wild guess--, that's what you are saying. 

Mischaracterization of my position. I am claiming that it is or has become an integral part of the universe

12 hours ago, joigus said:

I'd rather say "the universe is made of matter and mind" is (most likely) just an illusion.

 Do you realize that you are using your mind to negate mind?

12 hours ago, joigus said:

 

Let me be fastidiously clear: What I mean is that ants building a megalopolis display a behaviour that's not programmed in each and every one of their genetic codes separately, or even their brains and the chemicals in their organic fluids. No matter how clever a programmer might be, no matter how subtle and seasoned in reading code, he or she would be totally unable to read into any of those things the elaborate and intricate result of an ant megalopolis, just by reading the code. It's just not coded there. That's emergence for you.

Fastidiously clear, but I disagree. Some say in the neuroscience field that evoking emergence is a way of saying that we don’t know.

12 hours ago, joigus said:

It's certainly not. But being human is particularly misleading in this respect: How can mind be contingent? It must have been there all along.

A legitimate statement to propose.

[joigus]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Part of a single neurone’s purpose is to connect and communicate. The whole map thing supposedly comes with the trillion connections.

Neurons have no purpose. "Supposedly" is a word that doesn't help very much. Supposedly, many things could be true.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Neurones can give rise to purpose, but not inanimate objects, which was my original statement. 

"Inanimate" is not really a scientific category. It has meaning in common language, but the distinctions are blurred when one gets to the level of individual cells. The point was not that neurons can give rise to power purpose, btw. Rather, it was that billions upon billions can, while only dozens can't. Therefore something qualitatively different arises when really big numbers accrue. Orders of magnitude matter. The very same way that a hundred ants would do nothing like an ant megalopolis.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

It either began randomly or not randomly, no two ways about it. The “regularities of bumps” came after

You misunderstand "random". A weighted die is random. It only has a different odds (probability distribution) than a fair one (Laplacian probability). You, as many people, let me say, misunderstand "random". Neurons do not conform to Laplacian probability, they are very particular to special configurations. That's why they can tell one from the other. Otherwise they wouldn't play their role and our ancestors would have been eaten by the lion every single time. Many people talk (very loosely) about "random" meaning "Laplacian probabilities" or "the probability of all outcomes is the same". I suspect you also do.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Mischaracterization of my position. I am claiming that it is or has become an integral part of the universe

I said "I assume" so I wasn't characterising anything. But point taken.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

I understood your qualifications; i just disagree with them

 

Ok. You disagreed with the question "what do you mean?" Here:

14 hours ago, joigus said:

"Breathe fire into" is just a metaphor. What do you mean? Didn't you understand my qualifications in that sense?:

Referring to:

20 hours ago, joigus said:

Stephen Hawking meant what makes the cosmological constant, and other constants of Nature, not behaviour as an emergent pattern:

Quote

Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing

(My emphasis.)

IOW, "makes a universe" not "makes a mind"...

IOW, Stephen Hawking meant (very clearly) "make a universe", not "breathe life into inanimate matter", as you seem to suggest by his trope "breath fire" into the equations.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

 Do you realize that you are using your mind to negate mind?

No, as I recognize no mind. But your dualism is apparent now.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Some say in the neuroscience field that evoking emergence is a way of saying that we don’t know.

Modern science does more than just evoking emergence. It runs simulations of fungi or ant colonies solving the travelling salesman's problem in real time. There are also explicit theoretical models of it in other contexts.

Edited September 2 by joigus
correction

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Neurons have no purpose. "Supposedly" is a word that doesn't help very much. Supposedly, many things could be true.

"Inanimate" is not really a scientific category. It has meaning in common language, but the distinctions are blurred when one gets to the level of individual cells. The point was not that neurons can give rise to power purpose, btw. Rather, it was that billions upon billions can, while only dozens can't. Therefore something qualitatively different arises when really big numbers accrue. Orders of magnitude matter. The very same way that a hundred ants would do nothing like an ant megalopolis.

You misunderstand "random". A weighted die is random. It only has a different odds (probability distribution) than a fair one (Laplacian probability). You, as many people, let me say, misunderstand "random". Neurons do not conform to Laplacian probability, they are very particular to special configurations. That's why they can tell one from the other. Otherwise they wouldn't play their role and our ancestors would have been eaten by the lion every single time. Many people talk (very loosely) about "random" meaning "Laplacian probabilities" or "the probability of all outcomes is the same". I suspect you also do.

I said "I assume" so I wasn't characterising anything. But point taken.

Ok. You disagreed with the question "what do you mean?" Here:

Referring to:

IOW, Stephen Hawking meant (very clearly) "make a universe", not "breathe life into inanimate matter", as you seem to suggest by his trope "breath fire" into the equations.

No, as I recognize no mind. But your dualism is apparent now.

Modern science does more than just evoking emergence. It runs simulations of fungi or ant colonies solving the travelling salesman's problem in real time. There are also explicit theoretical models of it in other contexts.

1- I beg to differ; a single neurone has purpose (to link up and communicate; to "feel" its environment and react accordingly). "Supposedly" as in main science thinks that way, but not I. My contention is that matter creating mind is still unproven. There are kinks in the armoury.

2- One neurone - one tiny sliver of mind. Billions upon billions of neurons - a very sizable amount of mind. No qualitative jump. Orders of magnitude matter as in a sizable increase in power output. Hundreds of ants do small ant mounds that become megalopolis when millions get involved.

3- In the beginning of it all, there was a single random quantum fluctuation - that is a contention from many cosmologists. Give me one miracle and I will explain all of the rest. Before special configurations, there was randomness, numb randomness as in a weighted die. Then came special configurations and we were on to something. But where did this special configuration come from? out of randomness or mind gave it a kick in the pants?

4- The point that I was trying to make, maybe erroneously, is if there was an equation for behaviour, it would have to abide by the same principles as equations for constants. Then it would apply but not be a substitute for it as for constants.

5- Did not imply the latter. The constants that are alluded to are representations of a material universe. They have nothing to do with living matter. Actually, that is why you cannot contend to a theory of everything with an amalgamation of such constants. A big part is forgotten; what to do with mind? 

6- You did not reply to my comment that you are using your mind to negate mind, and dualism is not a personality fault, but a theory as any other.

7- When fungi mimics the Tokyo subway, who is doing all of the computing?

 

[joigus]

9 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

1- I beg to differ; a single neurone has purpose (to link up and communicate; to "feel" its environment and react accordingly). "Supposedly" as in main science thinks that way, but not I. My contention is that matter creating mind is still unproven. There are kinks in the armoury.

A brain can build purpose. A neuron can't. Purpose = "intention", "aim", "meaning", etc.

What you're doing here is stretching the meaning of the ordinary word to take it outside of the specific sense in which scientists and philosophers of science use it. For you it's just a synonym of "function". In that sense, of course neurons have purpose, because you use it to mean "function".

13 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

2- One neurone - one tiny sliver of mind. Billions upon billions of neurons - a very sizable amount of mind. No qualitative jump. Orders of magnitude matter as in a sizable increase in power output. Hundreds of ants do small ant mounds that become megalopolis when millions get involved.

No. It's not just a question of power. It'a question of different patterns, laws, and correlations arising, which a bunch of tens of neurons cannot even begin to accomplish.

15 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

3- In the beginning of it all, there was a single random quantum fluctuation - that is a contention from many cosmologists. Give me one miracle and I will explain all of the rest. Before special configurations, there was randomness, numb randomness as in a weighted die. Then came special configurations and we were on to something. But where did this special configuration come from? out of randomness or mind gave it a kick in the pants?

You tell me. I sense a big teleological explanation coming up.

Random is not just anything. It has to be consistent with patterns of quantum noise. The die analogy was just that; an analogy.

22 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

4- The point that I was trying to make, maybe erroneously, is if there was an equation for behaviour, it would have to abide by the same principles as equations for constants. Then it would apply but not be a substitute for it as for constants.

Here I don't understand what you say. Maybe that's why I don't get your point. What does this have to do with purpose in ants?

26 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

5- Did not imply the latter. The constants that are alluded to are representations of a material universe. They have nothing to do with living matter. Actually, that is why you cannot contend to a theory of everything with an amalgamation of such constants. A big part is forgotten; what to do with mind?

The constants are representations of a material universe? I cannot make sense of that. Dimensionless constants are what they are 1/137 is not a representation of anything. Had it had a very different value, there would be no mind in the sense of a part of the universe trying to make sense of the whole universe.

29 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

6- You did not reply to my comment that you are using your mind to negate mind, and dualism is not a personality fault, but a theory as any other.

I did:

3 hours ago, joigus said:

No, as I recognize no mind. But your dualism is apparent now.

You are a dualist. Your question only makes sense if there are two different realities. Namely: matter and mind. What we call mind comes from patterns of behaviour in matter.

37 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

7- When fungi mimics the Tokyo subway, who is doing all of the computing?

I'll answer that when you answer this: When the Earth turns around the Sun, who is doing the computing? How does the Earth know where to go next?

 

[Luc Turpin]

2 hours ago, joigus said:

A brain can build purpose. A neuron can't. Purpose = "intention", "aim", "meaning", etc.

What you're doing here is stretching the meaning of the ordinary word to take it outside of the specific sense in which scientists and philosophers of science use it. For you it's just a synonym of "function". In that sense, of course neurons have purpose, because you use it to mean "function".

No. It's not just a question of power. It'a question of different patterns, laws, and correlations arising, which a bunch of tens of neurons cannot even begin to accomplish.

You tell me. I sense a big teleological explanation coming up.

Random is not just anything. It has to be consistent with patterns of quantum noise. The die analogy was just that; an analogy.

Here I don't understand what you say. Maybe that's why I don't get your point. What does this have to do with purpose in ants?

The constants are representations of a material universe? I cannot make sense of that. Dimensionless constants are what they are 1/137 is not a representation of anything. Had it had a very different value, there would be no mind in the sense of a part of the universe trying to make sense of the whole universe.

I did:

You are a dualist. Your question only makes sense if there are two different realities. Namely: matter and mind. What we call mind comes from patterns of behaviour in matter.

I'll answer that when you answer this: When the Earth turns around the Sun, who is doing the computing? How does the Earth know where to go next?

 

1 and 2 - so, “intention”, “aim” and “meaning” suddenly appear when an nth neurone is added? What? A phase change?

3- please name some of the different patterns, laws and correlations that seem to arise at, I guess, a certain threshold of complexity?

4- i ask the question, but you and I have no answer for it. So, no grand teleological revelation to share.

5- let’s try another tactic. Radom as by chance, without purpose (no intention, aim, meaning), no pattern, no direction, it just happened without intervention from anything or anyone….. the general sense of the word.

6- it was in relation to another point that you made, so lets park it as I agree that I am not expressing myself clearly on this one

7- so, the universe is fine tuned for mind in the sense of a part of the univers trying to make sense of the whole universe? 

8-you recognize no mind using your mind? Where is the sense in this?

9- the only thing that I am sure of at my current level of knowledge is that materialism does not satisfactorily explain all of reality, especially its subjective aspect. In fact, it wants nothing to do with it but still claims full understanding..  Patterns of behaviour in matter is a pretty weak expression to me of mind.

10- no one computes and earth goes where gravity takes it, but this is non living matter with no requirement to take some sort of decision…just follows the grove.very different from living matter needing to decide whether or not to take a path……