hi,

On 14/12/2017 13:54, Bald Eagle wrote:
> jr <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> imagine then you're the controller/observer of two mazes, one contains a
>> mould which is on its second maze, the other a human, naked no tools,
>> also on their second maze.  previous maze layout was different.
>> observing their behaviour, how could you tell one is (supposedly)
>> "intelligent" while the other operates on "instinct"?
> Well, you see, ...
> Humans have evolved to use tools - which requires them to capitalize on wealth
> (amassed food and resources) to leverage the free-time that wealth buys to
> design and make those tools.  The conditions of your comparison are artificial.

well yes, quite.  to both.

thing is, when you're the subject of study you don't get to choose.

> A human would elevated himself above the maze, use a mirror, or a drone, or a
> satellite photo.

humour me then.  and, to make it "easier" we could imagine
exo-biologists from Sirius II conducting the experiment, they obtained
one slime mould and one human and can configure two identical but for
scale mazes, the floor is uniformly 5m (human scale) wide, the walls 20m
high, an air condition distributes the smell of an appetising food
everywhere equally.  the human is naked and has no tools but if it pulls
out a hair and sticks it (with spit) to the wall that'll hold (akin to
slime mould depositing chemical marker compound), but no mirrors, etc.
as before, second run for both.

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.  :-)


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

jr <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

> "how?" wasn't the right question (sorry).
>
> imagine then you're the controller/observer of two mazes, one contains a
> mould which is on its second maze, the other a human, naked no tools,
> also on their second maze.  previous maze layout was different.
>
> observing their behaviour, how could you tell one is (supposedly)
> "intelligent" while the other operates on "instinct"?

Perhaps the "how" you are asking is "HOW do I design an experiment to detect
intelligence?"

In which case, I would say that the above is a poorly designed experiment.

If the "How?" is how would an intelligent being that evolved with tools and
infrastructure be able to solve a different maze better the second time, then
I'd speculate that given intellect and experience,

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)

2. realize that the maze is a subset of 3d space.  Climb up over the entrance
wall and walk around the entire maze to the exit.

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.

4. Perhaps the maze isn't "solid" but composed of sections that are optical
illusions.
http://labyrinth.wikia.com/wiki/Labyrinth_(film)

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...

6.  Perhaps the maze has weak points - maybe I can disassemble the maze,
move/alter the maze, or, "solving" the Gordian Knot, I break through it.
Or perhaps it's edible and I can chew through it.

7.  Maybe it's an ice maze, and if I wait it'll just melt.

8. Are there controls?  A sign?  A diagram posted, showing the path?

so many options...

Post a reply to this message

jr <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:


> 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.

Noli turbare circulos meos!


I think you're stuck in a maze/trap of your own making.

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.


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

Put a computer programmer on a farm or in a coal mine.
I watched a scientist giving us a special seminar on advance nuclear magnetic
resonance spectroscopy have to go back home overseas because his wife had always
provided _everything_ for him, and he was incapable of really functioning on his
own.

How intelligent and capable is a baby vs a man?
How intelligent is a woman vs a man?   Can women do things that men can't, and
vice versa?

How intelligent is a quadriplegic?
Helen Keller?
Stephen Hawking?
An 80 yo Nobel Laureate?

Stop proposing, and expecting meaningful data and answers from - bad
experiments.

Post a reply to this message

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.

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

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)

Post a reply to this message

Am 14.12.2017 um 12:54 schrieb Bald Eagle:

> I would say that might tie more into the level of intelligence idea - the slime
> mold isn't aware that it's solving a problem - it's just mechanically searching
> for food and avoiding areas where it doesn't find any.  A blind, brute force
> algorithm driven by chemotaxis.

I'm not happy with your use of the term "brute force"; that term is
pretty well-defined in software engineering, and defines an approach
where you try out /every/ possible solution until you find the one that
is correct (or, in the case of optimization problems, until you tried
all of them and can compare the "costs" of each of them to find the best
one).

That's not what the slime mold does. It doesn't try out each of the
(infinitely) many possible routes through the maze and compares their
"costs". Instead, it uses a quasi-iterative optimization approach: Start
out with one very rough approximation of the solution (which in case of
the slime mold doesn't even qualify as a route, but is just an almost
uniform blanket of slime), and modify this approximation to get ever
closer to the optimal solution.

In a nutshell, the slime mold's "algorithm" seems to be as follows:

1. Start out with a uniformly filled surface.
2. For every point on the surface, try to figure out if the point can
possibly be part of the optimal path.
3. Eliminate every point that is guaranteed to not be part of the
optimal path.
4. Rinse and repeat from 2.

Post a reply to this message

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

jr <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:


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

Well, if we're using survival as an intelligence metric, then what do we make of
some grunt running Archimedes through with a sword?  Who's more intelligent?
Who survived?
I think intelligence is more than that, as I may get into below, or later, as
time permits.


> 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).

Well, my main point here is that there are physical attributes of a creature
that allow it to DO certain things that another creature may not be able to do.
So even though there may be a puzzle, there may be purely physical
obstacle/challenges that have nothing to do with intelligence.
We also haven't gotten into things like sanity, mental illness, phobias, etc.
I'm assuming for the sake pf present discussion we're "assuming a spherical
human"  ;)

> > 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.

Right, but I meant multiple experiments in a different context.
For maximum differentiation / signal-to-noise ratio, you'd want to provide ample
access to things that would allow the creatures to apply their intellect to
their surroundings.
Archimedes would surely want a lever... ;)



> > 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.

:P

> > 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?

One would assume the slime mold would just search around endlessly in it's
oozing manner, and not do much of anything else.

Since you haven't provided [m]any features to act upon, and we're talking about
someone who would "test well" in this scenario, I would assume they'd try to do
as you suggested, using hair or something to mark their progress through the
maze.
One might try the "right-hand rule" and follow the walls around until exiting
the maze.


> > 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.

A door one can open by pushing from one side, but that then closes and cannot be
opened from the other side.  An intelligent creature might recognize such a
feature and attempt to prop it open so as not to lock itself into one
exploratory path and shut out the option of going back.

Presumably the blob would ooze through, and that would be it.



> > 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")

We could / should have that.  ;)

There is the question of intellect relieving evolutionary pressure, and indeed
we have technology and food supply enabling people to lounge aimlessly, the
unfit to survive to reproduce, and damaging the gene pool by diluting the fit
genes with less fit ones.

This then touches on:
short term goals "Me!" vs long term goals (humanity)
morals, ethics and sanity (eugenics) (great CEO or psychopath?)
AI (we're more fit, kill all humans)
would intelligent beings create an AI given the above possible / probable
outcome

Lots more swirling through my head - break is over - maybe later if I have the
free time  :)

Post a reply to this message

On 14/12/2017 13:54, Bald Eagle wrote:
> A human would elevated himself above the maze, use a mirror, or a drone, or a
> satellite photo.
> Slime molds are still blindly oozing through mazes millions of years later...

Have you read Flatland by "A Square"?
You are comparing a 3D entity with a 2D one. Hardly fair. Not that I 
consider Slime Moulds intelligent. And thinking about it. All humans 
intelligent at least going by their behaviour.

As Clipka said it originally meant:

> "Intelligence" derives from the Latin verb "intelligere" - to
> comprehend, or perceive.

What does it mean now?

Quire a few SF authors have talked the question. How can one intelligent 
species recognise that a completely alien species is intelligent?
Look at termites for example. Their nests and mounds have 
thermoregulation others have shelter tubes for transport and protection. 
Are individual termites intelligent?

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

hi,

On 14/12/2017 20:21, Bald Eagle wrote:
> jr <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> less sure what, though erudite, "do not disturb my circles" means here.
> Well, if we're using survival as an intelligence metric, then what do
we make of

I thought we're trying to establish, through observation, whether a
given behaviour may be seen as "intelligent".

> some grunt running Archimedes through with a sword?  Who's more
intelligent?
> Who survived?

isn't that what statistics is for?  that Archimedes thing might be an
"outlier".

(inadmissible anyway since "grunt" and Mr A were of same species)

> I think intelligence is more than that, as I may get into below, or
later, as
> time permits.

yes please.

>> 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).
> Well, my main point here is that there are physical attributes of a
creature
> that allow it to DO certain things that another creature may not be
able to do.

correct, however, the requirements for a maze should be simple enough to
allow both mould + human to show off their abilities on a level playing
field.

> So even though there may be a puzzle, there may be purely physical
> obstacle/challenges that have nothing to do with intelligence.
> We also haven't gotten into things like sanity, mental illness,
phobias, etc.
> I'm assuming for the sake pf present discussion we're "assuming a
spherical
> human"  ;)

"Otto Normalverbraucher", ja.

>>> 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.
> Right, but I meant multiple experiments in a different context.

right.  hence the re-phrasing to "research project".  I'm sure that, in
due course, the Sirians will want to perform a vivisection too.  ;-)

> For maximum differentiation / signal-to-noise ratio, you'd want to
provide ample
> access to things that would allow the creatures to apply their
intellect to
> their surroundings.
> Archimedes would surely want a lever... ;)

but in any such project surely you'd progress from simple tests like a
maze empty except for some food, to more complex ones where, perhaps,
you'd supply materials to fashion tools.

>>> 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?
> One would assume the slime mold would just search around endlessly in it's
> oozing manner, and not do much of anything else.

ah.  but would it search a section found previously empty for a second
time?  or would it leave a (chemical) note to self not to bother?

> Since you haven't provided [m]any features to act upon, and we're
talking about
> someone who would "test well" in this scenario, I would assume they'd
try to do
> as you suggested, using hair or something to mark their progress
through the
> maze.
> One might try the "right-hand rule" and follow the walls around until
exiting
> the maze.

I know it as the left-hand rule, but, afaik, that does not work for all
mazes.

>>> 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.
> A door one can open by pushing from one side, but that then closes and
cannot be
> opened from the other side.  An intelligent creature might recognize
such a
> feature and attempt to prop it open so as not to lock itself into one
> exploratory path and shut out the option of going back.
> Presumably the blob would ooze through, and that would be it.

neat, yes.  a test to include, for sure.

> There is the question of intellect relieving evolutionary pressure,
and indeed
> we have technology and food supply enabling people to lounge
aimlessly, the
> unfit to survive to reproduce, and damaging the gene pool by diluting
the fit
> genes with less fit ones.

there's another (long) discussion looming, potentially.  :-)

> This then touches on:
> short term goals "Me!" vs long term goals (humanity)
> morals, ethics and sanity (eugenics) (great CEO or psychopath?)

all alone in a vast, uncaring universe..

> AI (we're more fit, kill all humans)
> would intelligent beings create an AI given the above possible / probable
> outcome
> Lots more swirling through my head - break is over - maybe later if I
have the
> free time  :)

ok.


regards, jr.


sorry btw for clicking wrong send button.

Post a reply to this message

On 14-12-2017 14:54, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Humans have evolved to use tools - which requires them to capitalize on wealth
> (amassed food and resources) to leverage the free-time that wealth buys to
> design and make those tools.  The conditions of your comparison are artificial.
> 

Correction: humans are one of the numerous species on Earth that use 
tools. A lot of other animals do too, from birds to elephants, not 
forgetting apes. And they use them purposefully, not blindly.

So, I am not sure if your analysis holds...

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message