4th December 2005, 9:41 AM
You misunderstand.
I only stated that only moving things need brains. I didn't say ALL moving things need brains. I merely said that before a brain even becomes necessary, it needs to be capable of movement. All things with brains can move, but not all things that can move have a brain. I also did not define "life" as "moving".
I went to great pains to point out that there isn't "higher" and "lower", and that our designation of "species" is a matter of convenience for organization rather than an indication that nature itself somehow "recognizes" the cutoff between certain genetic configurations. In using the model of stars, I was only pointing out that in some ways they can be seen to try to protect their own existance. In most ways, they do not fit the definition of life. Perhaps fire would have been a better analogy? :D Don't make me quote Data (from Star Trek).
And, just because you can damage something and see it react in a way to heal itself doesn't mean it is aware of the process. I can damage an enemy in a game and some of them may be programmed to back up or find health in order to kill me and "win". Does this indicate any awareness? I certainly hope you are at least aware that current AI has no conciousness.
Just because the set of reactions tend to lead to continued survivability does not mean it is actually aware of said reactions.
The rest of that was merely petty insults. All I can say is that you have yet to provide any evidence other than "it reacts to it's environment and tends to survive!". That, however, is NOT sufficient evidence for intelligence.
I only stated that only moving things need brains. I didn't say ALL moving things need brains. I merely said that before a brain even becomes necessary, it needs to be capable of movement. All things with brains can move, but not all things that can move have a brain. I also did not define "life" as "moving".
I went to great pains to point out that there isn't "higher" and "lower", and that our designation of "species" is a matter of convenience for organization rather than an indication that nature itself somehow "recognizes" the cutoff between certain genetic configurations. In using the model of stars, I was only pointing out that in some ways they can be seen to try to protect their own existance. In most ways, they do not fit the definition of life. Perhaps fire would have been a better analogy? :D Don't make me quote Data (from Star Trek).
And, just because you can damage something and see it react in a way to heal itself doesn't mean it is aware of the process. I can damage an enemy in a game and some of them may be programmed to back up or find health in order to kill me and "win". Does this indicate any awareness? I certainly hope you are at least aware that current AI has no conciousness.
Just because the set of reactions tend to lead to continued survivability does not mean it is actually aware of said reactions.
The rest of that was merely petty insults. All I can say is that you have yet to provide any evidence other than "it reacts to it's environment and tends to survive!". That, however, is NOT sufficient evidence for intelligence.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)