3 ms·

But if you observe the behavior of a bacterium, operating under similar principles but seeking instead a salt or pH value, you would do well to describe it simi

by R0b0t1 6y ago

But if you observe the behavior of a bacterium, operating under similar principles but seeking instead a salt or pH value, you would do well to describe it similarly. The bacterium is seeking a certain condition. It can not think, but it is a machine that acts with purpose and must be modeled accordingly.

Orou 6y ago
I'm curious at what point an organism is considered to be capable of thought. From a mechanistic standpoint, it seems like the goal-seeking behavior of a simple organism could be modeled as a gradient ascent toward a local optima. But even complex organisms are still seeking certain conditions to maximize their ability to survive and reproduce. Is the existence of a brain enough for a creature to be considered capable of thought? How complex does an organism have to be before we no longer think of it as being a biological "machine"? Or do we simply fall into the trap the GP described, where once something is complex enough that we don't understand what is going on from a purely mechanical perspective we consider it close enough to human to empathize with it?
- robbintt 6y ago
  A preread for your journey into the belly of the beast: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_ethology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_ethology
- R0b0t1 6y ago
  What do you mean by thought? A much simpler question can be answered: is it possible to be cruel to an animal? The accepted answer revolves around whether or not you can influence the behavior of the animal (or machine). Crabs naturally hide under rocks. If you shock them when they hide under the rocks they eventually stop hiding under the rocks. Meanwhile a bacteria, by itself, will never learn to associate a stimulus with a condition. That may capture the capability for thought. There are higher levels past it, like learning to model the behavior of other organisms, and those models eventually turning into a theory of self.

by R0b0t1 6y ago

Orou 6y ago

I'm curious at what point an organism is considered to be capable of thought. From a mechanistic standpoint, it seems like the goal-seeking behavior of a simple organism could be modeled as a gradient ascent toward a local optima. But even complex organisms are still seeking certain conditions to maximize their ability to survive and reproduce. Is the existence of a brain enough for a creature to be considered capable of thought? How complex does an organism have to be before we no longer think of it as being a biological "machine"? Or do we simply fall into the trap the GP described, where once something is complex enough that we don't understand what is going on from a purely mechanical perspective we consider it close enough to human to empathize with it?

robbintt 6y ago
A preread for your journey into the belly of the beast: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_ethology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_ethology
R0b0t1 6y ago
What do you mean by thought? A much simpler question can be answered: is it possible to be cruel to an animal? The accepted answer revolves around whether or not you can influence the behavior of the animal (or machine). Crabs naturally hide under rocks. If you shock them when they hide under the rocks they eventually stop hiding under the rocks. Meanwhile a bacteria, by itself, will never learn to associate a stimulus with a condition. That may capture the capability for thought. There are higher levels past it, like learning to model the behavior of other organisms, and those models eventually turning into a theory of self.