 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I've read two of Paul's excellent books, and I just came across this interview
accidentally:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M71X-dspU4
Really quite an amazing 20 minutes.
Stephen and others ought to enjoy this immensely. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/12/2017 18:10, Bald Eagle wrote:
>
> I've read two of Paul's excellent books, and I just came across this interview
> accidentally:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M71X-dspU4
>
> Really quite an amazing 20 minutes.
>
> Stephen and others ought to enjoy this immensely. :)
>
Sorry, BE.
I watched seven minutes before I stopped watching. There were so many
alarm bells going off in my mind it became a trial to watch. He exudes
"con man" to me both in his body language and how he spoke.
But that is just me. I am sure others might enjoy it.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/12/2017 20:15, Stephen wrote:
>
> Sorry, BE.
Actually, I feel quite upset after watching it.
I can't say why.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
On 13/12/2017 20:15, Stephen wrote:
> On 13/12/2017 18:10, Bald Eagle wrote:
>> I've read two of Paul's excellent books, and I just came across this
>> interview accidentally:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M71X-dspU4
>> Really quite an amazing 20 minutes.
very interesting interview.
>> Stephen and others ought to enjoy this immensely. :)
> I watched seven minutes before I stopped watching. There were so many
> alarm bells going off in my mind it became a trial to watch. He exudes
> "con man" to me both in his body language and how he spoke.
hm. not getting that (though his T shirt made him look a vicar). I
thought he was quite careful in qualifying/defining his points.
> But that is just me. I am sure others might enjoy it.
well I enjoyed the intellectual "jolt".
> Actually, I feel quite upset after watching it.
> I can't say why.
it'd be interesting to know though..
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aol com> wrote:
> Actually, I feel quite upset after watching it.
> I can't say why.
Wow - Paul is highly educated, well-spoken, and is held in high regard as a very
serious and knowledgeable mycologist.
He entertains some very interesting ideas, which is why he's probably unpopular
with the driest of the soul-sucking bureaucratic administrative academics.
His interview evoked some of the more interesting science fiction novels
concerning vast, cluster-type lifeforms such as Stanislaw Lem's "Solaris", and
lifeforms that exist and function in a life-cycle and time scale vastly
different from our own, such as in Frederik Pohl's novels.
That fungi are ancient, exist in vaster colonies than we know, and have the
capacity to "intelligently"* influence and shape their environment to such a
degree that they may have directly and profoundly affected the course of human
evolution seemed quite a provocative hypothesis.
*He references some experiments on slime molds, and uses their observed
behaviour as evidence of "intelligence", whereas at the present time I only see
basic chemotaxis and the inevitable geometric and mathematic inevitabilities of
iterative selective cycles.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
On 13/12/2017 21:20, Bald Eagle wrote:
> *He references some experiments on slime molds, and uses their observed
> behaviour as evidence of "intelligence", whereas at the present time I only see
> basic chemotaxis and the inevitable geometric and mathematic inevitabilities of
> iterative selective cycles.
does it matter given the outcome's the same? perhaps that (too) relates
to the point made that language constructs constrain.
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I almost forgot to mention that it almost seems like the mushroom version of
Arthur C. Clarke's "The Sentinel" / "2001: A Space Odyssey"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/12/2017 21:20, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>
>> Actually, I feel quite upset after watching it.
>> I can't say why.
>
> Wow - Paul is highly educated, well-spoken, and is held in high regard as a very
> serious and knowledgeable mycologist.
>
Yes, Wow!
It was not his ideas. It was him, himself. And I've not been partaking
of relaxing herbs. :-)
The part of the brain that puts obscure references together and comes up
with connections was working overtime. Andy, one of my first best
friends, who in later years tried to con my grandmother. A close
relative who turned into a junkie and could con his way out of
everything except his own fate. The politicians who are telling obvious
lies but people believe them... Many more examples on request. ;)
I may be doing him an injustice but one of the first things he implied
was that he was very very smart. "My brother who was a super genus much
smarter than me." Shows a lack of understanding that others can see a
hidden boast. To my eyes or ears to be more accurate.
I felt dirty after watching what I did. The way people say they do if
they have been burgled.
Ah! well. There is little chance I will meet him to see if I feel the
same in person. And thinking about it. It might be the way he is trying
to project himself after criticism.
But on the whole I would not leave him alone in the same room with a
baby and a feeding bottle if he needed milk for his coffee.
> He entertains some very interesting ideas, which is why he's probably unpopular
> with the driest of the soul-sucking bureaucratic administrative academics.
>
I can understand that. I have read some of his ideas reported by others
and they are thought provoking.
> His interview evoked some of the more interesting science fiction novels
> concerning vast, cluster-type lifeforms such as Stanislaw Lem's "Solaris", and
> lifeforms that exist and function in a life-cycle and time scale vastly
> different from our own, such as in Frederik Pohl's novels.
>
I've read Solaris but so long ago I can't remember it. Frederik Pohl
more recently and I can see the connection. As with the sentinel.
> That fungi are ancient, exist in vaster colonies than we know, and have the
> capacity to "intelligently"*
> influence and shape their environment to such a
> degree that they may have directly and profoundly affected the course of human
> evolution seemed quite a provocative hypothesis.
>
> *He references some experiments on slime molds, and uses their observed
> behaviour as evidence of "intelligence", whereas at the present time I only see
> basic chemotaxis and the inevitable geometric and mathematic inevitabilities of
> iterative selective cycles.
>
>
I seem to remember that Tokyo transport used slime moulds to help design
pars of their transport system.
>
better. :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
jr <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> does it matter given the outcome's the same? perhaps that (too) relates
> to the point made that language constructs constrain.
I would say it makes a big difference.
There's a huge difference between a blind naive brute-force algorithmic approach
that will arrive at a given endpoint when it's constrained by the input
parameters to arrive at a given result, and an intelligent recognition of a
solution to a given problem that can be formulated by an intelligence before
even beginning to implement the solution.
SDL is not intelligent.
POV-Ray is not intelligent.
The parser is not intelligent (just ask clipka!)
The algorithm Thomas is using to arrange blobs in the form of a human is not
intelligent.
The people who write that code are. (Don't hate me, Stephen!) :)
The slime mold example seems to be a Clockwork Orange. There is no objective
autonomy which consciously makes decisions of its own accord. There is a
programmed array of cells that are acted on by its environment and responds in a
certain manner.
There doesn't seem to be much more intelligence there than a liquid adopting the
shape of its complex container, or a clock, or a GPS navigation system
calculating the fastest route given current traffic conditions, or a
supercomputer arriving at a programmed solution to a fluid dynamics problem or a
finite element optimization of a suspension bridge.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
On 14/12/2017 00:38, Bald Eagle wrote:
> jr <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> does it matter given the outcome's the same? perhaps that (too) relates
>> to the point made that language constructs constrain.
> I would say it makes a big difference.
> There's a huge difference between a blind naive brute-force algorithmic approach
> that will arrive at a given endpoint when it's constrained by the input
> parameters to arrive at a given result, and an intelligent recognition of a
> solution to a given problem that can be formulated by an intelligence before
> even beginning to implement the solution.
but how can you be sure that "our" internal functions aren't simply
brute-force approaches? I mean, we don't actually even see what's there
but only what the brain shows us, filling in "details".
our perception is orderly progress, begin to think about A, consider
components of A, and so on. there's no telling though that that's what
actually happens.
> SDL is not intelligent.
> POV-Ray is not intelligent.
> The parser is not intelligent (just ask clipka!)
> The algorithm Thomas is using to arrange blobs in the form of a human is not
> intelligent.
> The people who write that code are. (Don't hate me, Stephen!) :)
> The slime mold example seems to be a Clockwork Orange. There is no objective
> autonomy which consciously makes decisions of its own accord. There is a
> programmed array of cells that are acted on by its environment and responds in a
> certain manner.
> There doesn't seem to be much more intelligence there than a liquid adopting the
> shape of its complex container, or a clock, or a GPS navigation system
> calculating the fastest route given current traffic conditions, or a
> supercomputer arriving at a programmed solution to a fluid dynamics problem or a
> finite element optimization of a suspension bridge.
so how does one define intelligence then? the ability to surmount a
given challenge in the most cost effective manner? seems to me that
much (all?) hinges on the language used.
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
