hi,

I've combined the replies to posts 1510h and 1529h with this one.

>> how could the Sirians tell the difference between intelligent and
>> "instinctual" behaviour?
>>> Slime molds are still blindly oozing through mazes millions of years
later...
>> which means /they/ manage.  :-)
> Surviving does not imply intelligence, nor does extinction imply
stupidity.

sure.

> Noli turbare circulos meos!

less sure what, though erudite, "do not disturb my circles" means here.

> One would expect intelligent visitors to be able to design an appropriate
> experiment.
> You don't take a slime mold and a monkey and put them in a featureless
box.  You
> give them things to do things with, and see what they do.

the Sirians didn't visit, they obtained the slime mould and the human as
typical samples of common life forms from a trader, complete with the
meal they had in front of them before abduction (for replication); the
Sirians aren't DNA based either, so they're very excited when tissue
samples reveal that four moderately complex molecules can form the basis
for life, and even when they discover that, in spite of visual
appearance, the creatures' genetic make-up shows much correlation and
even some /identical/ genes.

the "box" is a maze.  the task is to locate the food stuff.  simples.

> But that also leads into my earlier points of _ability_ to exercise your
> intelligence in an environment vs simply being intelligent.

my point exactly.  to find the food at some acceptable "cost", you will
have to "exercise your intelligence" (unless you happen to locate the
food by accident).

> jr <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:> "... conducting the experiment, "
> And that's a problem right there.
> Scientists almost never conduct a single experiment - not in the way you're
> presenting.

in both posts I wrote that they're commencing the second experiment.

however, you right, I 'represented it poorly.  instead let's say that
the Sirians undertake a research project, where such experiments feature.

> They certainly almost never _interpret the results_ of a single experiment.
> Experiments are usually done in sets.  Blank, Control, Standards, Sets of
> identical conditions but with one variable.
> Then those experiments are interpreted _in context_.

yes.  and let's not even begin on qualitative vs quantitative designs
and evaluations.

> And that's in vitro.  In vivo is much more complicated - just ask anyone
> studying medicine and doing new drug development.
> There are false positives, false negatives, and a host of other complications.
> https://www.google.com/search?q=percent+of+medical+studies+can%27t+be+trusted
> http://retractionwatch.com/
> Check out the last paragraph:
> http://www.orgsyn.org/content/pdfs/Procedures/v88p0001.pdf
> But back to your original experimental setup, how do the two organisms maneuver
> through the maze?  By sight? How do you know what wavelengths they use?  Is the
> atmosphere in the maze interfering with that?  Smell? How do you know the
> organisms can smell it?  Taste?

the maze is a near sterile uniformly soft-glowing white (to not give the
subject shadows to help) material, glasslike smoothness.  within the
mazes the Sirians have replicated conditions as best as can (right
atmospheric gas mix, pressure, whatnot; for the sake of argument assume
that the environment is as neutral as possible)

they don't know whether the subjects have a sense of smell, the aromatic
compounds released by the food are added via air con on the assumption
that it cannot do any harm.  ;-)

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenylthiocarbamide
> You'd need to account for genetic variation.
> Tactile sensation?   What's the nerve density and sensory resolution?
> I suppose if we have to be limited by what you present, then I'd look at what
> each organism did.

I'd hoped we'd get here.

> If it was more of the same - stupid.
> If it tried new and different things, and variations on those - then
> intelligent.

can you please rewrite this wrt the maze context?

> Maybe put a one-way door in, and see which one props it open (recognizes the
> concept of irreversibility, time, order of operations, and keeping options open)

too condensed.  not sure I follow.

> 1. perhaps there was some attribute of the previous maze that could be
exploited
> to solve the second maze more quickly.  This involves observation,
abstraction,
> and even statistical probability, and economics (cost/benefit and risk
> assessment)
> 3. Maybe the maze isn't static, but dynamic.  Perhaps recognition that a
> straight-through path opens up every so often indicates that the most
efficient
> solution is no to move, but to sit still and wait, and then move.

agree with both of those.

> 5. Maybe solving the maze isn't such a good idea - perhaps the ones
who better
> solve the maze are the ones that get weeded out by the researcher...

heh.  there's always that..  :-)


btw, there's an excellent (IMO) SF short story "Arena" by Frederic
Brown, where the ability to utilise one's intelligence became the
difference between life and death.  (hence the Sirian "scenario")


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message