Buddhism and Karma (Religion)

by David Turell , Sunday, December 15, 2013, 01:27 (3778 days ago) @ xeno6696


> Matt: 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.-Agreed 
> 
> 
> 
> Matt: "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."
> 
> Matt: 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. -Agreed again, but from those automatic neurons consciousness, free will and free thought appear. And, of course, we have no idea how. And computers can't do it, and Penrose says they never will.
> 
> David: "The issue is that intelligence is part of consciousness,"
> 
> Matt: 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?-But it is constricted intelligent behaviour based entirely on and constrained by your programs limits. No free unrelated thought appears. Computers appear intelligent but they are simply robotic.