Friam

something serious from something silly

Classic

List

Threaded

11 messages Options

Prof David West

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
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

thompnickson2

Re: something serious from something silly

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

n

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 8:57 PM
To: [hidden email]
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 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
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: something serious from something silly

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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

n

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 8:57 PM
To: [hidden email]
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 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
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Pieter Steenekamp

Re: 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
Octopus ground mimicry is the thing I cannot understand. How do you copy
what you are not looking at?

n

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 8:57 PM
To: [hidden email]
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 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
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
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Prof David West

Re: something serious from something silly

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

Octopi probably do "see" the ground behind them. They have more neurons in their skin than in their brain and the chroma-cells (forgot the technical name) are bi-directional "camera and display." So one side "sees" and transmits to opposing side for display. All without entering the central nervous brain.

davew

On Fri, Apr 30, 2021, at 9:12 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Octopus ground mimicry is the thing I cannot understand. How do you copy
> what you are not looking at?
>
> n
>
> Nick Thompson
> [hidden email]
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 8:57 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> 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 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
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>

Gary Schiltz-4

Re: something serious from something silly

Cool conversation about octopus. While not scientific, I really enjoyed the move “My Octopus Teacher”. Insightful and thought provoking.

On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 9:02 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Octopi probably do "see" the ground behind them. They have more neurons in their skin than in their brain and the chroma-cells (forgot the technical name) are bi-directional "camera and display." So one side "sees" and transmits to opposing side for display. All without entering the central nervous brain.

davew

On Fri, Apr 30, 2021, at 9:12 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> Octopus ground mimicry is the thing I cannot understand. How do you copy
> what you are not looking at?
>
> n
>
> Nick Thompson
> [hidden email]
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 8:57 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> 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 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
> 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
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

thompnickson2

Re: something serious from something silly

In reply to this post by Pieter Steenekamp

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

[hidden email]

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

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Saturday, May 1, 2021 1:14 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] something serious from something silly

On Sat, 1 May 2021 at 05:18, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
Octopus ground mimicry is the thing I cannot understand. How do you copy
what you are not looking at?

n

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 8:57 PM
To: [hidden email]
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 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
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
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

thompnickson2

Re: something serious from something silly

In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2

Same problem, but the pattern matching of cephalopods is so extraordinarily precise that it’s much harder to think of an explanation. An octopus has a much more distributed nervous system so perhaps an explanation begins with the idea that it has eyes all over its arms. Nothing that I have read gives me any comfort for that idea. Another possibility is, of course, that it turns around, looks at the substrate, memorizes it, puts the pattern on its skin, and then arranges newly patterned body to correspond to the remembered pattern of the substrate. Lots of luck with that.

I don’t know why I am feeling so certain about things this morning Some times I wake up in the morning with the illusion that I actually know stuff.

“He Never Falls Harder Than Falls From His Highest Horse”.

Nick Dixxed that, also.

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

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

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 9:18 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] something serious from something silly

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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

n

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 8:57 PM
To: [hidden email]
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 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
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

thompnickson2

Re: something serious from something silly

In reply to this post by Prof David West

AAAAHHHH! Thank you, Dave. Chroma cells, eh? Say more!

N

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Saturday, May 1, 2021 8:02 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] something serious from something silly

Octopi probably do "see" the ground behind them. They have more neurons in
their skin than in their brain and the chroma-cells (forgot the technical
name) are bi-directional "camera and display." So one side "sees" and
transmits to opposing side for display. All without entering the central
nervous brain.

davew

On Fri, Apr 30, 2021, at 9:12 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Octopus ground mimicry is the thing I cannot understand. How do you copy
> what you are not looking at?
>
> n
>
> Nick Thompson
> [hidden email]
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 8:57 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> 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 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 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 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
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Pieter Steenekamp

Re: something serious from something silly

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

Hi Nick, Thanks for correcting me, what I meant above was a species with intelligent members.

On Sat, 1 May 2021 at 18:43, <[hidden email]> wrote:

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
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Saturday, May 1, 2021 1:14 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
Octopus ground mimicry is the thing I cannot understand. How do you copy
what you are not looking at?

n

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 8:57 PM
To: [hidden email]
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 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
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
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
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

thompnickson2

Re: something serious from something silly

Pieter,

Others will warn you that I should not be encouraged when I am being persnickety. But thanks from me, anyway.

You may detect from my post that I am in the thrall of a book by Michael Sandel called The Tyranny of Merit.

All the best,

We are better for your voice.

Nick

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

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

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Saturday, May 1, 2021 11:59 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] something serious from something silly

Hi Nick, Thanks for correcting me, what I meant above was a species with intelligent members.

On Sat, 1 May 2021 at 18:43, <[hidden email]> wrote:

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
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Saturday, May 1, 2021 1:14 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
Octopus ground mimicry is the thing I cannot understand. How do you copy
what you are not looking at?

n

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 8:57 PM
To: [hidden email]
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 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
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
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
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/