MacadamiaMarquess t1_ithpen0 wrote
Reply to comment by Spitinthacoola in Formation of Namibia’s fairy circles isn’t due to termites. Plants are "ecosystem engineers" that survive by forming optimal geometric patterns. by marketrent
It’s not a red herring in this context, because the definition of intelligence I think most people are colloquially applying (that the other user seemed to apply), and that I am trying to distinguish swarm intelligence from, is a property of conscious minds.
But if you prefer, we can use different wording. The etymological root of intelligence means “to understand.” As far as I can ascertain, the swarm doesn’t understand. It merely behaves much as if it did.
Other constructs (like you and me!) manage to understand things, but that’s not what swarm intelligence describes.
Spitinthacoola t1_iti7364 wrote
It absolutely is a red herring. The swarm understands things the individuals dont. Your genes understand things. Intelligence is nested across scale. Single cells have intelligence and solve problems. Tissues have intelligence and solve problems. Organs have intelligence and solve problems. Organisms have intelligence and solve problems. Swarms have intelligence and solve problems. We are just really bad at understanding and working with diverse types of intelligence. This is something we will get better at, by necessity.
Intelligence is almost certainly substrate agnostic.
MacadamiaMarquess t1_itijtv7 wrote
>It absolutely is a red herring.
No. An essential part of my main point is not a distraction from my main point.
I was using a particular element (of a meaning of a word) to distinguish that meaning (which someone applied here) from a different meaning (which someone applied in the article).
If you want to use a different definition of any of the words I have used, or make a different point than I was making, that’s your prerogative. But that’s you making a different point or using a different definition, not me dropping a red herring.
>Your genes understand things. Intelligence is nested across scale. Single cells have intelligence and solve problems. Tissues have intelligence and solve problems.
Great. But that’s not how the other user was using the words, and not how I was using the words. I was distinguishing between multiple common definitions to remove a confusion, not telling you how you have to use them.
b1ttly t1_ithv82y wrote
Would it be better to say Living things can store electrical energy from inputs used to control some sort of output. (Memory)
Making decisions based on that memory then comes down to whatever internal mechanism is driving impulse to respond and recalls the memory.
For humans this is very complex, but for plants it might just be very very simple.
ChucktheUnicorn t1_iti7slu wrote
> As far as I can ascertain, the swarm doesn’t understand. It merely behaves much as if it did.
How do you know it doesn't understand, even if in a more limited way? We only believe other people are conscious/understanding based on their observed behaviors
MacadamiaMarquess t1_itiiasb wrote
That’s fair. We don’t know whether it is conscious/understanding, and may never know.
But my poor phrasing aside, swarm intelligence is used to describe scenarios where we are eventually able to explain the behavior without any need to resort to a hypothesis that has the group construct obtaining either understanding or a consciousness.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments