[FRIAM] something serious from something silly

Sat May 1 12:40:37 EDT 2021

Hi, All, 

With out appearing too persnickety, could I ask that we keep a distinction in mind in this discussion:  between  an intelligent species and a species with intelligent members.  A species is  intelligent to the degree that it seeks out points in adaptation space where it is continued.  It’s easy to declare a species as intelligent because we know what it is maximizing. (Well, relatively easy: what do we say when a species divides into two: that it has failed or succeeded?) Working out whether an individual is intelligent is more tricky until we have decided what “should” be maximized by an individual.  Don’t tell me survival, because NO individuals survive.  Don’t tell me reproduction, because no individual diploid organism reproduces.  Don’t tell me “genes”, because genes are not like so many cold coins that can be hoarded in a dragon’s cave.  The whole area of intelligence in evolution is a social Darwinist, class-ridden,  cesspool of confusion and I urge you to all think carefully before you flush yourselves down this particular toilet. 

But I love you all!

Nick Dixit

Nick Thompson

 <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Saturday, May 1, 2021 1:14 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] something serious from something silly

My question is what is an intelligent species?

Here on earth we observe that there are two mechanisms to develop technology: evolution and cognition. If we define an intelligent species as one that uses cognition to develop technology, then neither octopi nor any other species on earth are intelligent, because we don't observe them using cognition to develop technology. Even if we decode hidden structure in octopi's communication and even if they communicate deep emotional issues very eloquently, according to this definition they would not be an intelligent species.

But, of course an intelligent species could be defined differently. For example, natural selection could evolve a species with  hidden order or structure in their communication and they could, for argument's sake, eloquently communicate their emotions via color.  A species having a deep emotional discussion using this type of communication, even without the ability to use cognition to develop technology could be defined as an intelligent species. Why not? Let's do a thought experiment where octopi have this and robots are doing the mundane stuff like providing food and shelter and health care and humans have deep emotional discussions with octopi, it would be useful to consider octopi as an intelligent species.

On Sat, 1 May 2021 at 05:18, Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com <mailto:wimberly3 at gmail.com> > wrote:

Do chameleons see what's under their tails?

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz, 
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 9:12 PM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com> > wrote:

Octopus ground mimicry is the thing I cannot understand.   How do you copy
what you are not looking at?

n

Nick Thompson
ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com> 
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> > On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 8:57 PM
To: friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com> 
Subject: [FRIAM] something serious from something silly

A discussion of UFOs occupied some time in FRIAM today, including the
observation that despite looking for "intelligent signals" ala SETI have
failed. 

Made me think of octopi (& other cephalopods) that communicate with
brilliant displays of rapidly changing color. We think that these displays
are more than reactive, that they are "intelligent communication." Mostly,
it seems to me, we infer this because we have a lot of context, including
interacting octopi, but if all we had was the "signal" absent the context,
would we recognize it as "intelligent?"

I am not phrasing the question very well, but if we had nothing except a
5-minute video of an octopus' surface changing color, would we be able to
detect a hidden order or structure that would allow a reasonable
determination that it originated from an intelligent species?

davew

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam>  un/subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> 
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> 
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210501/868cea72/attachment.html>