Ant intelligence; queen does not rule the colony II (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, April 20, 2020, 16:04 (1678 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The information is monkey-see-monkey-do. Ants have eyes and join the others in an activity.

dhw: Which activity, since they are confronted with a choice, and why do they communicate with one another if they have nothing to “say”?

They communicate to understand the activity required.

dhw: […] You could hardly have a more vivid illustration of the manner in which cells and cell communities organize themselves in accordance with whatever is required by the whole structure under varying conditions.

DAVID: The usual appeal for innate intelligence, when the cells are beautifully programmed to act intelligently.

dhw: Are you going back to your God devising programmes 3.8 billion years ago for ants and neurons to change tasks whenever required? How do they know which programme to switch on? Or do you think he does ongoing dabbles when ants and neurons change their tasks?

You still refuse to accept automatic activity from programmed information. Tell your kidneys they do not know what they are doing or why!

DAVID: The discussion about this type of organization in neurons may help us understand how our brain is organized and performs its thought processes in concert with its soul.

dhw: I don’t know if there is a soul, but since the soul gives the instructions, that would be the equivalent of the queen, which our author says does NOT give instructions. It’s a communal process, not a top-down process. So in this case, the intelligent cells organize themselves.

DAVID: Not my theory: the soul has to work with the brain neuronal networks to develop instructions or concepts, the complexity of which depend exactly on the level of complexity of the neuron networks. Do you believe the queen gives minute by minute instructions?

dhw: No. I’m happy to accept the author’s view that ant behaviour is the result of communal interaction. The author’s analogy does not mention a soul, in which case his analogy only refers to the materialist view of neurons interacting in order to produce the results.

DAVID: Or are you simply trying to find intelligence where is doesn't exist? If it looks intelligent, doesn't ever mean it is innately intelligent.

dhw: Yet again you make your 100% judgement of what, in your moments of enlightenment, you acknowledge is a 50/50 chance. If it looks intelligent, maybe it IS intelligent!

Since we look from the outside, the odds of 50/50 apply and each of us can chose a side and one of us is correct. From your fence top, we are not allowed to choose? I have my choice.