joigus Posted September 4 Share Posted September 4 19 minutes ago, CharonY said: Well, DNA proofreading basically just refers to 3'-5' exonuclease activity, where enzymes (usually polymerases) can excise mismatches during errors in elongation. This basically just reduces overall error rates. I am sure folks might misuse the term, though. I know what biologists mean when they say "proofreading". I was referring to people who take these metaphors for what they're not and argue that it somehow implies there's an intention at work there. Same goes, I think, for terms such as "ant doctors". "Ant doctors" is shorter to say than carbohydrate-driven release of metapleural secretion" or something like that. That's what makes these particular ants (all of them) "doctors". There's nothing more going on there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted September 4 Share Posted September 4 How about this one? An ant that selectively amputates the infected limbs of wounded sisters https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1049744 or this one? Ants fight pathogenic fungi with a compound from bacteria https://cen.acs.org/biological-chemistry/natural-products/Ants-fight-pathogenic-fungi-compound/99/i3 fascinating! 5 minutes ago, joigus said: I know what biologists mean when they say "proofreading". I was referring to people who take these metaphors for what they're not and argue that it somehow implies there's an intention at work there. Same goes, I think, for terms such as "ant doctors". "Ant doctors" is shorter to say than carbohydrate-driven release of metapleural secretion" or something like that. That's what makes these particular ants (all of them) "doctors". There's nothing more going on there. Chocolate is a constituent of chocolate milk. There is no intention there until I want one. when reducing it to an essential component such as carbohydrate-driven release of metapleural secretion, do we not remove it from its context, which was possibly a lowly ant trying to heal another fellow ant? how about the other examples that I just provided?. I am sure that we can also find another crucial compound, but the fact remains that it seems as if someone is trying to help another. 1 hour ago, CharonY said: Unrelated to the topic at hand, but I thought that you might be interested. Bacteria encode hidden genes outside their genome--do we? | ScienceDaily Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joigus Posted September 4 Share Posted September 4 None of this proves any healing intention or "purpose" in an ant's hypothetical "mind", which is the point we're discussing. Same with the ant megalopolis. You might want to call them architect ants, but that would just be a figure of speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted September 4 Share Posted September 4 39 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Unrelated to the topic at hand, but I thought that you might be interested. Bacteria encode hidden genes outside their genome--do we? | ScienceDaily I read the paper, which is interesting but the linked article is mostly fluff, unfortunately. 42 minutes ago, joigus said: I know what biologists mean when they say "proofreading". I was referring to people who take these metaphors for what they're not and argue that it somehow implies there's an intention at work there. Same goes, I think, for terms such as "ant doctors". I assumed that is what you are getting at, but reading the sentence compelled me to at least mention that, as it is the exact terminology (rather than a simplification of a term, if that makes sense). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted September 4 Share Posted September 4 5 - For the love of Thor, plz learn how to quote sections of a post 6 - Nobody follows your numbering 7 - It's easy 8 - Just highlight the text to which you're specifically responding then click "Quote selection" 3 - It's not hard 1 - Your numbers don't align with anything B - It would at least make sense if you added numbers to the quoted text, but you don't even do that Alpha - Thanks. 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: 1- Not shorter, 2- not having these kinds of observations, 3- agree, colourful language 4- was aware of the paper; Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted September 4 Share Posted September 4 31 minutes ago, CharonY said: I read the paper, which is interesting but the linked article is mostly fluff, unfortunately. Wanted to make myself useful. 36 minutes ago, joigus said: None of this proves any healing intention or "purpose" in an ant's hypothetical "mind", which is the point we're discussing. You are right; it does not prove intention of "purpose" but one of top of the other makes it a bit easier to acknowledge that it might. 42 minutes ago, joigus said: Same with the ant megalopolis. You might want to call them architect ants, but that would just be a figure of speech. But, they nonetheless are building a pretty awsome castle. 19 minutes ago, iNow said: 5 - For the love of Thor, plz learn how to quote sections of a post 6 - Nobody follows your numbering 7 - It's easy 8 - Just highlight the text to which you're specifically responding then click "Quote selection" 3 - It's not hard 1 - Your numbers don't align with anything B - It would at least make sense if you added numbers to the quoted text, but you don't even do that Alpha - Thanks. Had a big laugh out of it. You are right, I wil post better from now on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 (edited) Are cracks appearing in the foundation? Is evidence piling up? How many little robots is too many? Fact or machination? Was the emperor even wearing any clothing? Correction: machination without the evil end; Edited September 5 by Luc Turpin for precision sake; machination without ill intent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joigus Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 1. No 2. Yes 3. Depends 4. Neither 5. Yes 6. What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 1 hour ago, joigus said: 1. No 2. Yes 3. Depends 4. Neither 5. Yes 6. What? Liked your post. However, I beg to differ on some of the answers: 1. Maybe. 2. Yes, but on the other side as well, which might make it unavoidable at one point 3. Depends on what? (cannot endlessly add robots in response to increasing complexity; again, at one point, we may need to explore other avenues) 4. Former 5. We may never know. 6. Machination (point 4) requires evil intentions, which was not my contention. Wrong choice of word. Don't tell iNow that we are using a numbering system! 😊 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 He already knows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted September 6 Share Posted September 6 18 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: Liked your post. However, I beg to differ on some of the answers: 1. Maybe. 2. Yes, but on the other side as well, which might make it unavoidable at one point 3. Depends on what? (cannot endlessly add robots in response to increasing complexity; again, at one point, we may need to explore other avenues) 4. Former 5. We may never know. 6. Machination (point 4) requires evil intentions, which was not my contention. Wrong choice of word. Don't tell iNow that we are using a numbering system! 😊 What you're missing is the value of ignorance, in people it can mean thinking in a different way to sometimes come up with a noval solution. In an ant ignorance means there's nothing to think/smell about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted September 6 Share Posted September 6 A good summary of the debate over ant intelligence. A five-minute read. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weve-been-looking-at-ant-intelligence-the-wrong-way/ "How intelligent are animals? Despite centuries of effort by philosophers, psychologists and biologists, the question remains unanswered" - so why did we jump to the conclusion that they were not! Because, we interpreted observation and data based on a set belief system. And, at what length do we go to fit observation into our belief system? "Simon explains that the complexity observed in the behavior is not necessarily in the ant, but in the interaction between the ant and the surrounding complex environment." Really? Then the data piles up and buries the whole thing. We should be doing more observing and less interpreting through a specific tint of coloured glasses. And, how much more complexity will be required to make it too hard to contemplate that ants can only be mindless cogs in the machine? Words and arguments can only go so far in placating away other possible venues of ant intelligence! 20 minutes ago, dimreepr said: What you're missing is the value of ignorance, in people it can mean thinking in a different way to sometimes come up with a noval solution. In an ant ignorance means there's nothing to think/smell about. Agree on the former and beg to differ on the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted September 7 Share Posted September 7 Notwithstanding my gregarious way of framing things, why is observation on ant intelligence not treated in the same way nor receiving the same level of objectivity as in say this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted September 7 Share Posted September 7 10 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Notwithstanding my gregarious way of framing things, why is observation on ant intelligence not treated in the same way nor receiving the same level of objectivity as in say this? 23 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: On 9/6/2024 at 12:49 PM, dimreepr said: What you're missing is the value of ignorance, in people it can mean thinking in a different way to sometimes come up with a noval solution. In an ant ignorance means there's nothing to think/smell about. Agree on the former and beg to differ on the latter. Because an ant, when deprived of sometihng to think about (eg the smell it's used too) will default to the simplest programme, i.e. search for a smell it recognises; it doesn't think about it, like a human can. Your arguments are dangerously close to religion, as in there's a magic spark to intelligence that can only be achieved by an organic organism. Ant intelligence is far more simple than our current AI, and our current AI is stupid... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted September 7 Share Posted September 7 For plants, but applicable to ants as well. "Evidence suggests that plants can behave intelligently by exhibiting the ability to learn, make associations between environmental cues, engage in complex decisions about resource acquisition, memorize, and adapt in flexible ways. However, plant intelligence is a disputed concept in the scientific community. Reasons for lack of consensus can be traced back to the history of Western philosophy, interpretation of terminology, and due to plants lacking neurons and a central nervous system. Plant intelligence thus constitutes a novel paradigm in the plant sciences. Therefore, the perspectives of scientists in plant-related disciplines need to be investigated in order to gain insight into the current state and future development of this concept." "Our findings show that respondents’ personal belief systems (emphasis mine) and the frequency of taking into account other types of knowledge, such as traditional knowledge, in their own field(s) of study, were associated with their opinions of plant intelligence. Meanwhile, respondents’ professional expertise, background (discipline), or familiarity with evidence provided on plant intelligence did not affect their opinions." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9153103/ 5 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Because an ant, when deprived of sometihng to think about (eg the smell it's used too) will default to the simplest programme, i.e. search for a smell it recognises; it doesn't think about it, like a human can. Did Nigel tell you that? I am serious though! 6 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Your arguments are dangerously close to religion, as in there's a magic spark to intelligence that can only be achieved by an organic organism. If observation leads us to that then, so be it. It is not my intention though and we are far-far away from demonstrating that there's a magic spark of intelligence. How about intelligence possibly being part of the universe as is matter? Blending it into the fabric of the universe could be helpful in some other areas of scientific investigations. I admit that it is pure speculation on my part and that the idea has issues of it own to contend with. Just giving it up as an example. 10 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Ant intelligence is far more simple than our current AI, and our current AI is stupid... My readings seem to suggest that ant intelligence is far more complex than current AI and not functionning on the same operating system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted September 7 Share Posted September 7 6 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: My readings seem to suggest that ant intelligence is far more complex than current AI and not functionning on the same operating system. The thing is, AI, ant or whatever only seems intelligent bc of our intelligence and our fundamental need to empathise; for instance, my dog is so clever bc it has learned to mimic an emotional response; does not mean it was clever enough to think of that strategy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted September 7 Share Posted September 7 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: Notwithstanding my gregarious way of framing things, why is observation on ant intelligence not treated in the same way nor receiving the same level of objectivity as in say this? Your gregarious approach is a huge part of the problem, though. As I’ve pointed out previously, you’ve begun with a preferred conclusion then cherry-pick individual narratives which support it. You then further ignore larger understandings which suggest your idea may not have merit. Dimreepr isn’t wrong by suggesting it’s akin to religion. With LQG, however, researchers have said, here’s one possible set of math which may explain what we see, they then seek evidence which supports or refutes the hypothesis. They start with the data and the let it decide the conclusion. That’s different from you starting with the conclusion first. In the example you shared, the scientists found LQG is unlikely to be true, showed why, and maturely said “well, so much for that… time to move on.” Beyond that, there’s an element of falsifiability and having data available to objectively measure which isn’t the same across both topics. We can take measurements of how gravity and the cosmos behave and see how the model aligns with that. Tell me then… How are you similarly measuring ant intelligence without a bunch of assumptions and subjectivity? Are they taking online ant IQ tests? I don’t dismiss that colonies of ants display organized behavior that can be described as intelligent, but that’s because I have a loose definition of intelligence which allows for it. It’s treated differently bc one question is akin to asking whether 2+2=4 whereas your question is akin to asking how happy the color purple is. The questions are in different categories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 7 Share Posted September 7 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: For plants, but applicable to ants as well. "Evidence suggests that plants can behave intelligently by exhibiting the ability to learn, make associations between environmental cues, engage in complex decisions about resource acquisition, memorize, and adapt in flexible ways. However, plant intelligence is a disputed concept in the scientific community. Reasons for lack of consensus can be traced back to the history of Western philosophy, interpretation of terminology, and due to plants lacking neurons and a central nervous system. Plant intelligence thus constitutes a novel paradigm in the plant sciences. Therefore, the perspectives of scientists in plant-related disciplines need to be investigated in order to gain insight into the current state and future development of this concept." "Our findings show that respondents’ personal belief systems (emphasis mine) and the frequency of taking into account other types of knowledge, such as traditional knowledge, in their own field(s) of study, were associated with their opinions of plant intelligence. Meanwhile, respondents’ professional expertise, background (discipline), or familiarity with evidence provided on plant intelligence did not affect their opinions." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9153103/ Did Nigel tell you that? I am serious though! If observation leads us to that then, so be it. It is not my intention though and we are far-far away from demonstrating that there's a magic spark of intelligence. How about intelligence possibly being part of the universe as is matter? Blending it into the fabric of the universe could be helpful in some other areas of scientific investigations. I admit that it is pure speculation on my part and that the idea has issues of it own to contend with. Just giving it up as an example. My readings seem to suggest that ant intelligence is far more complex than current AI and not functionning on the same operating system. ! Moderator Note Seems to me we’ve gone over this ground before, and that thread was closed. You were told you could introduce a thread in speculations if you could present an actual scientific argument. You don’t get to hijack another thread to resurrect that discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts