3 ms·
That's true but not relevant. Flip-flops are a manifestation of human design honed by millennia of design evolution. Tennis balls are a manifestation of human
by robotresearcher 11y ago
That's true but not relevant.
Flip-flops are a manifestation of human design honed by millennia of design evolution. Tennis balls are a manifestation of human design honed by millennia of design evolution.
It does not follow that flip-flops are tennis balls.
But both statements above are still true, and their lack of equivalent properties is not an argument against their common history.
- mannykannot 11y agoThough my post is consistent with your last paragraph, I see what you mean. My intent was to clarify that the common history is not an argument for the ants' behavior being considered intelligent, but you can rightly say that you never made that claim. Cortesi's larger point, that complex behavior can arise from a few simple and inflexible rules that do not deserve to be called intelligence, is not being contested.
- robotresearcher 11y agoCortesi seemed to me to be saying something different: that ant behaviour was not intelligent, but merely nice algorithms honed by evolution. Which implies that intelligent is not nice algorithms honed by evolution. And since evolution is the only mechanism widely agreed to have produced intelligence so far (if we ignore divine intervention), I can't agree with that.