4 ms·

Is this just anthropomorphism of an emergent pattern, of the same nature as cell division and specialization? That a pattern resembles that of an ant colony whe

Is this just anthropomorphism of an emergent pattern, of the same nature as cell division and specialization? That a pattern resembles that of an ant colony where its members make billions of neurological real-time decisions which reinforce the perceived structure, these growth patterns are set with few active decisions and do not quickly change even with no active reinforcement.

beambot 5y ago
Your question is a bit tautological. If you're going to claim that the plants' eusocial behavior is emergent, then I'd argue that so is human consciousness. The mere act of comparing them is the definition of "anthropomorphism" -- it's just that we only have first hand experience with human consciousness.
- atomicbeanie 5y ago
  I think the case for plant behavior being emergent from a combination of factors not all under its control is easy to call a fact, but it is more challenging a notion to claim that consciousness is for a fact emergent (much as I am inclined to agree). As for tautology, I am claiming that we are attributing intent (a human characteristic) to an object. I think I used the term correctly. That behaviors of objects should not in general be allowed to be equated with human behavior leading to therefore imply human-like intent. I think this is a good idea in science. In my case I was trying to forward the idea of these two being at a different scale was a differentiator. And that the ants therefore were better candidates for such human like behavior than a plant. However a studying biology major set me straight on that and introduced what I think is a better criteria for looking at these systems. She said the underpinning work focused on these colonies establishing communication mechanisms. And while anthropomorphizing systems is frowned upon, in this case that might be an overly strict rule. After all both communication and conscious intent are both associated with humans. In computer science we fearlessly anthropomorphize with our names (actors, agents, managers). Why that should be not be frowned upon, but disallowed for plants therefore seems less and less obvious. So I think my concerns are unwarranted.
zeckalpha 5y ago
Humans are not generally considered eusocial.
- atomicbeanie 5y ago
  such a good point! I understand the previous comment better too. Thank you!

beambot 5y ago

Your question is a bit tautological. If you're going to claim that the plants' eusocial behavior is emergent, then I'd argue that so is human consciousness. The mere act of comparing them is the definition of "anthropomorphism" -- it's just that we only have first hand experience with human consciousness.

atomicbeanie 5y ago
I think the case for plant behavior being emergent from a combination of factors not all under its control is easy to call a fact, but it is more challenging a notion to claim that consciousness is for a fact emergent (much as I am inclined to agree). As for tautology, I am claiming that we are attributing intent (a human characteristic) to an object. I think I used the term correctly. That behaviors of objects should not in general be allowed to be equated with human behavior leading to therefore imply human-like intent. I think this is a good idea in science. In my case I was trying to forward the idea of these two being at a different scale was a differentiator. And that the ants therefore were better candidates for such human like behavior than a plant. However a studying biology major set me straight on that and introduced what I think is a better criteria for looking at these systems. She said the underpinning work focused on these colonies establishing communication mechanisms. And while anthropomorphizing systems is frowned upon, in this case that might be an overly strict rule. After all both communication and conscious intent are both associated with humans. In computer science we fearlessly anthropomorphize with our names (actors, agents, managers). Why that should be not be frowned upon, but disallowed for plants therefore seems less and less obvious. So I think my concerns are unwarranted.

zeckalpha 5y ago

Humans are not generally considered eusocial.

atomicbeanie 5y ago
such a good point! I understand the previous comment better too. Thank you!