On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 04:22:44PM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> On 11.08.2012 15:13 Stephen P. King said the following:
> >On 8/11/2012 4:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> >>On 10.08.2012 00:55 Russell Standish said the following:
> >>>The point being that life need not be intelligent. In fact 999.9% of
> >>>life (but whatever measure, numbers, biomass etc) is unintelligent.
> >>>
> >>>The study of artificial life by the same reason need not be a study of
> >>>artitificial intelligence, although because of a biases as an
> >>>intelligent species, a significantly higher fraction of alife research
> >>>is about AI.
> >>>
> >>
> >>What does intelligence means in this context that life is
> >>unintelligent? Let us compare for example a bacterium and a rock.
> >>Where there is more intelligence?
> >>
> >>Evgenii
> >>
> >Dear Evgenii,
> >
> >     A bacterium and a rock should not be put head to (no)head in this
> >question. A bacterium has autonomy while a rock does not. It is better
> >to see that the rock is just a small piece of an autonomous whole and
> >then compare that whole to the (whole) bacterium.
> >
> My goal was just to try to understand what Russell meant by life is
> unintelligent. Say let us take some creations of AI and compare them
> with a bacterium. Where do we find more intelligence?
> Evgenii

It seems like a nonsensical question to me. Neither rocks nor bacteria
are intelligent.


Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics      hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales          http://www.hpcoders.com.au

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to