On 8/12/2012 1:18 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
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?


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?


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

Hi Russell,

I was considering the autonomy of organisms... I agree with you, neither are intelligent. Intelligence seems to require the means to express itself such that, baring the ability, there is none to be had.



"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon

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