Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Emergent Behaviour

Name: Anonymous 2008-03-16 14:16

Statement:A complex system behaves smarter than the sum of its parts.

Question: If a ~1.5 Kg. system of neural tissue produces the human        consciousness,what would emerge from a system of every particle in the universe?

Just some fuel for thought :)

Name: Anonymous 2008-03-16 14:31

And no,i'm not trying to prove that god exists-but you have to adimt,this idea is seriously mind-blowing if you think about it.

Name: 4tran 2008-03-16 15:23

>>2
noko does work; gb2 /phail/

Your assertion was never proved, and the only evidence in its favor are animals.  All the other particles in the universe have 0 intelligence.  Thus, all those other particles are completely meangingless.

How are you even defining "smart"?  Are computers smart?

Name: RedCream 2008-03-16 15:31

>>1
You need to qualify further what you meant when you said:  "would emerge".

Name: Anonymous 2008-03-16 16:06

>>3
Animals and humans are made of those particles with 0 intelligence.This is emergence-production of something more complex than the stuff it is made of.

By 'smart',i mean complex.In that way,yes-computers are smart.

>>4
You know,i thought about this,and came up to the conclusion that there couldn't be any emergence from the universe-for example:a colony of ants builds it's nest more complex than a single ant could.It works on certain material,let's call this data.As we are talking about the whole universe,there isn't any outside data to work on,so for something to emerge from it more complex than the particles it is made of,it would have to change something in itself.which,if i'm not mistaken,isn't possible.So yeah,my philosophy phails :(

 

Name: Anonymous 2008-03-16 16:15

>>3
The particles themselves, including those of the human brain, are meaningless. Information is carried in the arrangement of those particles.
Unless you know what can result from every possible combination of every single particle in the Universe, OP's question is bullshit.

Name: RedCream 2008-03-16 16:31

>>5
It seems that you're talking about self organization.  The universe proves daily that it self organizes, with stellar formation, and the many examples of organization in our own solar system (alas, the only one we have the best view of).  Therefore, it isn't a requirement to effect one's self against an external stimulus ... given the evidence we possess, which shows ZERO stimulus from "outside the universe".

We need to find other examples of self-organized processing.  The sole example of such is in the neural equipment of Earth lifeforms, with supporting evidence from Human-created processing equipment.  So it seems that the end point you're looking for -- based upon current evidence -- is the conversion of more and more of the universe into information processors.

It would be nice to actually get Human-created information processors to the capacity where they can start designing their own processors.  We might see come real progress, then.  Douglas Adams may have sensed such a thing when he wrote about the great computers in his "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" series, and specifically when he wrote of the computer Deep Thought (designed by biological creators) which designed the great computer called the Earth (which was supposed to produce the question to the great answer of "42").  Science fiction and farce though that may have been, it still gives rise to the idea that our creations should seek to create things themselves.

Name: 4tran 2008-03-16 20:46

>>5
Plants are very complex objects at the molecular level, but I wouldn't call them smart.  Why are you redefining "smart" as complex?  Just say "complex" if that's what you mean (same applies to OP, if different poster).

Name: Anonymous 2008-03-17 0:00

>>1
smart, complex, emergence, therefore smart complex emergence, for example humans, therefore everything is intelligent mystic nonsense disguised with scientificy words, emergence, emergence, smart.

Name: Anonymous 2008-03-17 0:03

>>7
There's no reason to believe this can ever happen.

Name: Anonymous 2008-03-17 0:10

>>10
Fuck you.  He mentioned Douglas Adams, and Douglas Adams is cool, so RedCream must be cool.

Name: Anonymous 2008-03-17 0:12

>>1
>>2
>>3
>>4
>>5
>>6
>>7

I am 3 out of every 7 posters on this board

PROVE ME RIGHT

Name: Anonymous 2008-03-17 6:47

Bigger and more complex does not imply smartest.

Name: sage 2008-03-17 10:00

go back to your atsral battles.

Name: Anonymous 2008-03-17 10:22

cosmic consciousness

Name: Anonymous 2008-03-18 0:19


 >>1
A lump of fat that collapses under it's own weight.

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List