Liste des Groupes | Revenir à se design |
On 2025-07-10 14:04, john larkin wrote:I blame comp sci/software marketing who've has been calling anything more sophisticated than a bubble sort an "intelligent algorithm" for like 40 years.On Wed, 09 Jul 2025 19:38:41 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>That's just moving the goal posts. One gets people nowadays talking about different people's gut biomes 'communicating' with each other. If all they mean is that there's some poorly-qnantified mauual influence, okay, but I get the impression they often mean more than that.
wrote:
>I forgot to mention that he Sciences of the Artificial digs deep into>
why living things (even microscopic ones) have distinct organs and
often components within such organs, versus the organism being a mass
of tissue that somehow does everything. The driver is efficiency and
simplicity.
>
This assumes that life has already emerged in some unspecified way,
and goes from there. This is a different approach than Dawkin's
Blind-Watchmaker arguments.
>
Joe
>
>
Ref: "Simon_Herbert_A_The_Sciences_of_the_Artificial_3rd_ed" - The
Architecture of Complexity. New copies are available from MIT Press.
Even single-cell critters have levels of intelligence. Some people
suggest some level of consciousness.
>
The book sounds cool.
>
Dawkin says he is an atheist above anything else. So he naturally
hides from anything that's not primitive neo-Darwinism.
>
I think it's unhelpful to conflate mere mutual influence with intelligence---even calling it "information exchange" imports the idea of meaning, which requires actual intelligence.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.