4 ms·

Is this the correct film? The links & the wiki page on it talk exclusively about insect interaction. > how plants reach out their vines and leaves, moving and

Is this the correct film? The links & the wiki page on it talk exclusively about insect interaction. > how plants reach out their vines and leaves, moving and feeling the world around them I could argue cold water dropped into a very hot pan 'spreads out' to 'feel' its environment, 'withdrawing' from the metal where it can.

lioeters 7y ago
A big portion of the film is about insects - it also contains some wonderful footage (with some high-tech macro photography) of plants and the garden where it all takes place. Good point about a water droplet's behavior, how it seems to be "alive" in some aspects - all due to physical/chemical reations. I think it's related to the question of what "alive" means, and how it's different from inert, non-living material. With slime mold, much of its behavior is just like water - spreading, dripping, with surface tension, etc. - but there's definitely a difference (perhaps only subjectively), that an observer would say it "feels its way" toward a food source. I suppose the fact that we ascribe "feeling" to it, means we consider it alive, aware, and perhaps conscious.
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  > With slime mold... Seems it goes further. "People are irrational. Example: You wouldn’t buy a new dress, or suit, that costs $100 (‘that’s far too much to spend!’) but you would buy one that was $300, but is now ‘reduced’ to $150 (‘but just look at how far down it’s come!’) Sound familiar? You’re not alone, it’s fairly well-known that humans are irrational (at least by those in advertising- some products in supermarkets are never meant to be bought- they’re just there to get you to buy other products more), but are other animals just as irrational?" Turns out slime moulds fall for it too. Full article https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/not-bad-science/think-you-re-sometimes-irrational-you-re-not-the-only-one-8211-slime-moulds-are-irrational-too https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/not-bad-science/think-y... That really complicates thins. All that said, I am really uncomfortable talking about consciousness in these contexts at all, for obvious reasons. When we can identify and quantify, I'll talk. See my point elsewhere about matchboxes learning. Edit: fixed link
  - lioeters 7y ago
    Ah, I love slime moulds (I thought "mold" was American spelling, but apparently even Scientific American spells it "mould") - thank you for the article. It's funny to think of moulds making irrational decisions. > slime moulds make decisions through comparison to the other available options, rather than having an intrinsic value for things That sense of subjectivity and "thought" process to make decisions, sure sounds like consciousness to me - but then again, a stream flowing down a mountain also "makes decisions", and I'm not sure if there's a quantifiable difference. I just read the article you linked elsewhere: How 300 Matchboxes Learned to Play Tic-Tac-Toe [0]. When we call a completely mechanical process "learning", it seems to imply some kind of subjectivity and "thinking". It's hard for me to pinpoint, what is the difference between a human and a machine learning? The difference seems merely the level of complexity. Discussion about consciousness usually breaks down, I think, because the root of this concept is in our belief systems and philosophical view of life. At one end of the spectrum, all of existence is "conscious" in varying degrees; at the other end, nothing is really "conscious", it can all be explained as mechanical processes. The latter used to be a "heretical" worldview, to deny the "spirit" pervading all creation. These days, I'd say the former view is the odd one out, being unscientific (without experimental evidence) and based on an iffy definition of consciousness. https://opendatascience.com/menace-donald-michie-tic-tac-toe-machine-learning/ https://opendatascience.com/menace-donald-michie-tic-tac-toe... --- Edit: Here's a quote I just came across: > Freeman Dyson argued that "mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every electron." ..And a comment elsewhere mentioned, "consciousness as an emergent property of physical systems". That seems to be getting closer to a reasonable definition/explanation.
    - tempguy9999 7y ago
      Agreed about the spelling, I thought it was UK/US mold/mould. If you like slime moulds then, just in case you haven't met Dictyostelium discoideum, check out that on youtube. It goes from a collection of single-cells to a 'slug', a small multi-cellular organism which goes for a wander. Quite mind-blowing when I first met this behaviour. All I can say is consciousness is a bugger. Everyone seems to have some idea of what it is except me, and I'm not going to claim that I am. I just don't know. Anyway, a pleasant and constructive discussion, thanks!

lioeters 7y ago

A big portion of the film is about insects - it also contains some wonderful footage (with some high-tech macro photography) of plants and the garden where it all takes place. Good point about a water droplet's behavior, how it seems to be "alive" in some aspects - all due to physical/chemical reations. I think it's related to the question of what "alive" means, and how it's different from inert, non-living material. With slime mold, much of its behavior is just like water - spreading, dripping, with surface tension, etc. - but there's definitely a difference (perhaps only subjectively), that an observer would say it "feels its way" toward a food source. I suppose the fact that we ascribe "feeling" to it, means we consider it alive, aware, and perhaps conscious.

tempguy9999 7y ago
> With slime mold... Seems it goes further. "People are irrational. Example: You wouldn’t buy a new dress, or suit, that costs $100 (‘that’s far too much to spend!’) but you would buy one that was $300, but is now ‘reduced’ to $150 (‘but just look at how far down it’s come!’) Sound familiar? You’re not alone, it’s fairly well-known that humans are irrational (at least by those in advertising- some products in supermarkets are never meant to be bought- they’re just there to get you to buy other products more), but are other animals just as irrational?" Turns out slime moulds fall for it too. Full article https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/not-bad-science/think-you-re-sometimes-irrational-you-re-not-the-only-one-8211-slime-moulds-are-irrational-too https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/not-bad-science/think-y... That really complicates thins. All that said, I am really uncomfortable talking about consciousness in these contexts at all, for obvious reasons. When we can identify and quantify, I'll talk. See my point elsewhere about matchboxes learning. Edit: fixed link
- lioeters 7y ago
  Ah, I love slime moulds (I thought "mold" was American spelling, but apparently even Scientific American spells it "mould") - thank you for the article. It's funny to think of moulds making irrational decisions. > slime moulds make decisions through comparison to the other available options, rather than having an intrinsic value for things That sense of subjectivity and "thought" process to make decisions, sure sounds like consciousness to me - but then again, a stream flowing down a mountain also "makes decisions", and I'm not sure if there's a quantifiable difference. I just read the article you linked elsewhere: How 300 Matchboxes Learned to Play Tic-Tac-Toe [0]. When we call a completely mechanical process "learning", it seems to imply some kind of subjectivity and "thinking". It's hard for me to pinpoint, what is the difference between a human and a machine learning? The difference seems merely the level of complexity. Discussion about consciousness usually breaks down, I think, because the root of this concept is in our belief systems and philosophical view of life. At one end of the spectrum, all of existence is "conscious" in varying degrees; at the other end, nothing is really "conscious", it can all be explained as mechanical processes. The latter used to be a "heretical" worldview, to deny the "spirit" pervading all creation. These days, I'd say the former view is the odd one out, being unscientific (without experimental evidence) and based on an iffy definition of consciousness. https://opendatascience.com/menace-donald-michie-tic-tac-toe-machine-learning/ https://opendatascience.com/menace-donald-michie-tic-tac-toe... --- Edit: Here's a quote I just came across: > Freeman Dyson argued that "mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every electron." ..And a comment elsewhere mentioned, "consciousness as an emergent property of physical systems". That seems to be getting closer to a reasonable definition/explanation.
  - tempguy9999 7y ago
    Agreed about the spelling, I thought it was UK/US mold/mould. If you like slime moulds then, just in case you haven't met Dictyostelium discoideum, check out that on youtube. It goes from a collection of single-cells to a 'slug', a small multi-cellular organism which goes for a wander. Quite mind-blowing when I first met this behaviour. All I can say is consciousness is a bugger. Everyone seems to have some idea of what it is except me, and I'm not going to claim that I am. I just don't know. Anyway, a pleasant and constructive discussion, thanks!