Buddhism and Karma (Religion)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, December 14, 2013, 23:36 (3778 days ago) @ David Turell

Matt: The argument from social biologists is that the ant colony itself is the organism, and that the individual ants equivalent to cells in the human body. In that sense, David kind of undermines himself: If we can agree that the ant colony represents a single organism, but that organism displays intelligence in terms of being able to solve problems... but the individual ants themselves are simple automatons... then he's undermining the argument that chemical transactions in the brain are insufficient to produce intelligence.
> 
> 
> I don't follow your reasoning. Of course chemical reactions in the brain can produce intelligence, far more than computers ever can if you believe Penrose's comments. The issue is that intelligence is part of consciousness, and we don't know how that emerges from the complex of billions of neurons and trillions of synapses. The ants are automatons but acting together the colony acts as if it has intelligence, when really it is following instintual intelligent information in the genomes of the individuals. We can argue how that information was developed.-If I read you correctly here, you're basically saying (via the ant example) that the intelligent behavior we see when we're looking at an ant colony is simply our own projection of intelligence (call it confirmation bias) on what is basically a collective of mindless automatons. -I'm going to focus surgically on this sentence:-"The ants are automatons but acting together the colony acts as if it has intelligence, when really it is following instintual intelligent information in the genomes of the individuals. We can argue how that information was developed."-Well, what's the drastic difference between an ant and a neuron in this example? I'm saying that the intelligent behaviour of an ant colony isn't an illusion of intelligence, but that it is actually intelligence. And that if you accept the argument that this intelligence is ultimately the result of gene expression contained within the DNA of the individuals of the colony, then you necessarily accept an identical argument for the human brain. That's because neurons are no less automatons than the individuals of an ant colony. -"The issue is that intelligence is part of consciousness,"-And I would state that I don't think we can make that case. I can write a computer program that has no consciousness, yet clearly displays intelligent behavior. How about that robot I posted about some years back that was able, by the simple act of observation, to derive Newton's equations for motion?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"