What original spiral gene? Where is this in any genome, even by logical inference?
[quote=“martin-peter-clarke, post:60, topic:7725”]
No. Not at all. There is no magic. Nature, existence, being, does maths, sorry, ‘math’. Not the other wayIt’s ALL about efficiency.
NOTHING to do with quasi-intelligence, whatever that means.
Mathematics are often interpreted by their common use as taught in school, but they are so much more.
i.e. Efficiency is a mathematical term. It is a result of mathematical functions.
Efficiency
Mathematical expression
Efficiency is the (often measurable) ability to avoid wasting materials, energy, efforts, money, and time in doing something or in producing a desired result. In a more general sense, it is the ability to do things well, successfully, and without waste.[1][2][3][4][5]
“Efficiency is thus not a goal in itself. It is not something we want for its own sake, but rather because it helps us attain more of the things we value”.[6]
In more mathematical or scientific terms, it signifies the level of performance that uses the least amount of inputs to achieve the highest amount of output. It often specifically comprises the capability of a specific application of effort to produce a specific outcome with a minimum amount or quantity of waste, expense, or unnecessary effort.[7]
Efficiency is often measured as the ratio of useful output to total input, which can be expressed with the mathematical formula r=P/C, where P is the amount of useful output (“product”) produced per the amount C (“cost”) of resources consumed. This may correspond to a percentage if products and consumables are quantified in compatible units, and if consumables are transformed into products via a conservative process.
For example, in the analysis of the energy conversion efficiency of heat engines in thermodynamics, the product P may be the amount of useful work output, while the consumable C is the amount of high-temperature heat input. Due to the conservation of energy, P can never be greater than C, and so the efficiency r is never greater than 100% (and in fact must be even less at finite temperatures).
Of course the universe does not want anything for its own sake, but does seek the most efficient way of producing a result. I call that a quasi-intelligent function.
This has nothing to do with some divine motive agency. It is a metaphysical potential.
Plants have genes that order the spiral cell growth. These genes are products of evolution.
It is a quasi-intelligent genetic potential of many plants. It’s a biological mathematical program!
Helical growth in plant organs: Mechanisms and significance
Many plants show some form of helical growth, such as the circular searching movements of growing stems and other organs (circumnutation), tendril coiling, leaf and bud reversal (resupination), petal arrangement (contortion) and leaf blade twisting.
Recent genetic findings have revealed that such helical growth may be associated with helical arrays of cortical microtubules and of overlying cellulose microfibrils.
An alternative mechanism of coiling that is based on differential contraction within a bilayer has also recently been identified and underlies at least some of these growth patterns.
Here, I provide an overview of the genes and cellular processes that underlie helical patterning. I also discuss the diversity of helical growth patterns in plants, highlighting their potential adaptive significance and comparing them with helical growth patterns in animals.
What’s the difference? And apart from your humble self, which intellectual authority is making this claim? No tl;dr cut and paste screeds please Any name will do.
That helices are fractal, i.e. that nature is fractally helical, is a given. As I already listed. It’s because they’re spatially, informationally efficient.
The erroneous assumption of a consciously motivated intelligence. The erroneous assumption of “irreducible complexity” cobbled together by an intelligent Agency, a sentient watchmaker.
But as the universe demonstrably displays mathematical properties and functions.
IMO, the proper way to address this apparent paradox is to assign a non-conscious or non-motivated mathematical quasi-intelligence. A form of Metaphysical Logic.
This is my generalization of the way the Universe appears to function.
IMO mathematics are inherently Logical if not purely intelligent. Hence my use of the prefix “Quasi”.
Quasi-empiricism in mathematics
Quasi-empiricism in mathematics is the attempt in the philosophy of mathematics to direct philosophers’ attention to mathematical practice, in particular, relations with physics, social sciences, and computational mathematics, rather than solely to issues in the foundations of mathematics.
Of concern to this discussion are several topics: the relationship of empiricism (see Penelope Maddy) with mathematics, issues related to realism, the importance of culture, necessity of application, etc.
Primary arguments
A primary argument with respect to quasi-empiricism is that whilst mathematics and physics are frequently considered to be closely linked fields of study, this may reflect human cognitive bias. It is claimed that, despite rigorous application of appropriate empirical methods or mathematical practice in either field, this would nonetheless be insufficient to disprove alternate approaches.
Eugene Wigner (1960)[1] noted that this culture need not be restricted to mathematics, physics, or even humans. He stated further that “The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning.”
Wigner used several examples to demonstrate why ‘bafflement’ is an appropriate description, such as showing how mathematics adds to situational knowledge in ways that are either not possible otherwise or are so outside normal thought to be of little notice. The predictive ability, in the sense of describing potential phenomena prior to observation of such, which can be supported by a mathematical system would be another example.
Who’s making such assumptions? What’s the difference between
and any other superstition?
Again, cite any intellectual authority who uses THOSE terms.
And how did any and all terms come to be used by intellectual authority? Someone made them up and used them, no?
How did the term “interface” come to be used by intellectual authority?
The term quasi-intelligent function is perfectly suited to identify a mathematical function.
Human mathematics are 'intelligent" functions. Universal mathematics are quasi-intelligent functions.
A brainless Paramecium displays quasi-intelligent behavior in navigation. Slime mould are able to solve mazes by quasi-intelligent subtraction.
Quasi-
> In short, anything that has the suffix of (something)ness possesses a quasi-property of that “something”.
Nouns starting with prefix “quasi-”
How do you use quasi?
Use quasi when you want to say something is almost but not quite what it describes . A quasi mathematician can add and subtract adequately, but has trouble figuring out fractions. The adjective quasi is often hyphenated with the word it resembles. https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/quasi
Nouns ending with suffix “-ness”
Question: What does “-ness” mean at the end of an adjective? — Fabio, Colombia
Answer: When you add “-ness” to an adjective, it becomes a noun. The suffix “-ness” means “state : condition : quality” and is used with an adjective to say something about the state, condition, or quality of being that adjective.
For example, redness is a red quality, and redness means “the quality of being red.”
Nouns ending in -ness | Britannica Dictionary
So, no citation exists. As we knew anyway. It’s entirely your hapax legomenon. And there’s no need to cut and paste what that means.
Are you claiming you know every word or phrase the dictionaries and encyclopedias?
There is a word “intelligent”
There is a prefix “quasi-”
“quasi-intelligent” is a perfectly lexical compound term with a defined meaning.
Do you require a citation from a prior source to prove the correctness of a terminology.
There is a term “pseudo-intellectual”, but that has a pejorative connotation.
OTOH a quasi-intelligence is the description of a mathematical function that appears to have an abstract intelligent property, an asset, an evolved survival advantage.
I cited two brainless organisms that display quasi-intelligent behaviors.
If you do not think it is an appropriate term, explain why…
So nobody agrees with you.
I’m confident that some scientist has used the term. There is nothing wrong with it.
If not, I’l be happy to take credit for it…
If you believe there is something wrong with that term explain why you believe so.
To say that nobody has used it before is a meaningless observation. The question is if it is correct in essence.
Because it’s a meaningless claim not in any science writing I’ve ever come across. Not even in sci-fi and science fantasy.
The question was if it is correct in lexical correctness.
Have you ever seen the term semi-intelligent?
I consider the term artificial intelligence as a quasi-intelligence.
That’s not my question.
English isn’t your mother tongue is it.
I’m sure they have too, but nowhere on the internet. And where they have, not as you mean. Whatever that is.
I think it’s abundantly clear what I meant by that. Just put the two definition together and you have the compound definition of the compound term.
quasi -intelligent = apparently but not really intelligent.
Just like a brainless slime mould, a pseudopod that can solve mazes, has a sense of time, and prefers oats over other grains.
It acts intelligent , but it isn’t really intelligent. It is quasi intelligent. Good old English.
Matter is how you definite intelligence.
Beyond the ability to use logic, to have a memory, self-awareness and so, intelligence is the ability for abstract reasoning and to create ideas and representations, beyond beyond concrete and objective reality, to be conscious.
If you show me an animal who has conscience, can freely understand a poem, invente a story and so, i will say he is intelligent,
A computeur can in fact do these things but only in the limits of his program and because asked to. A man does not need a program. He is born with it. A computeur has no conscience.
[quote=“morgankane01, post:77, topic:7725”]
Matter is how you definite intelligence.
I agree, but the term is quasi intelligence. So it it is a matter of how you define quasi intelligence.
So let’s see what constitutes basic “intelligence”
What is the principle of intelligence?
Principles of Intelligence: On Evolutionary Logic of the Brain
The central mission of intelligence is to solve various problems in their natural and social environments in order to survive and thrive. This means that intelligence is ultimately about the ability to self-discover knowledge and patterns from a world full of uncertainties and infinite possibilities . Feb 3, 2016
Beyond the ability to use logic, to have a memory, self-awareness and so, intelligence is the ability for abstract reasoning and to create ideas and representations, beyond beyond concrete and objective reality, to be conscious.
That is true but in nature there are degrees (levels) of intelligence.
Quasi intelligent does not even have to be intelligent, but exhibit some behaviors that appear to be intelligent without having a functional brain.
(IMO, Logic is a form of mathematical intelligence inherent in the fabric of spacetime geometry itself.)
If you show me an animal who has conscience, can freely understand a poem, invente a story and so, i will say he is intelligent.
That is asking a lot. Not all humans can all do that either. It is all a matter of degree, and some people are “talented” musicians, some are talented writers, some are scientists, philosophers, etc, etc. No one is required to be able to do it all to be considered intelligent. As long as a person is good at one thing he/she is considered intelligent in that specialty.
What is faculty theory of intelligence?
THEORIES OF INTELLIGENCE
Faculty theory is the oldest theory regarding the nature of intelligence . This theory states that mind is made up of different faculties like reasoning, memory, discrimination and imagination etc. These faculties are independent of each other and can be developed by vigorous exercise. Dec 5, 2020
I think that to some degree all living things may have innate or acquired intelligence. It is what enables them to successfully adapt to their environment.
I mentioned the brainless slime mold that has successfully adapted to every environment on earth.
For having no brain or neurons , slime molds — a.k.a. Physarum polycephalum — are incredibly intelligent, capable of solving complex problems with extreme efficiency. An additional plus: They’re naturally nonpartisan. … This slime mold is free.Apr 5, 2018
How a slime mold thinks
In the picture below, you can see a slime mold growing on the rotting trunk of a tree. It’s bright yellow and creates spindly, vascular-like growths that connect it to food sources.
Here’s the key to understanding the creature and its approach to problem-solving: You’re not looking at a single creature. You’re looking at many thousands of them.
Slime molds can exist as free-floating single cells. But when two or more slime mold cells meet, they dissolve the cell membranes that separate each individual and fuse together in one membrane. That means two individuals, with individual genetics, can exist within the same body. And there’s no limit to the number of individuals that can join the collective, called a plasmodium. Each cell of the slime mold is making decisions that ultimately benefit the whole collective.
When slime molds are placed in a new environment, they’ll spread out in every direction in a fractal pattern, assessing the lay of the land. If they find something beneficial to them, like food, they’ll reinforce the pathway. If they find something they don’t like — like direct sunlight — they’ll recoil.
It sounds simple, but through this process, slime molds can solve an impressively complex array of problems.
If you spread out oats (slime molds’ favorite food) on a map, the slime molds will find ways to connect the sources of food with the shortest possible routes. If you add some obstacles to the map, like salt (which the slime mold hate), they’ll find creative ways to avoid them. When scientists model metropolitan areas in this manner, with the food representing centers of dense populations, slime mold can somewhat accurately recreate maps — like this map of the Tokyo rail system. It took human engineers years to map out the system. It took slime mold [just a few hours]
(Slime Mold Grows Network Just Like Tokyo Rail System | WIRED).
They also seem to teach one another. If scientists take one piece of slime mold that has solved a maze and add it to another, that second slime mold will finish the maze faster. There’s even evidence that slime mold [can keep track of time]
(How Brainless Slime Molds Redefine Intelligence [Video] | Scientific American).
And remember: They do this all without a brain, without a single neuron. Whatever mechanism allows slime mold to solve these problems, it’s evolved in a manner different from us. And since slime mold has been on Earth for approximately a billion years (compared to Homo sapiens ’ paltry approximately 200,000), it’s a pretty useful form of intelligence and worthy of our respect, perhaps even our imitation.
I believe the current understanding that slime molds do not have a neural network is in error. Slime molds have microtubules, Which is a common denominator in all Eukaryotic life and are the fundamental data processing organelle in all neuronal networks.
IOW the slime mold gets smarter the more individuals join the collective!! They create their own fractal data processing network . A true Quasi-intelligence!
tl;dr
Increasing complexity of behaviour with net processing power is a deterministic combinatoric consequence as we all know, what’s new? How does that feed back in to the meaningless proposition of quasi-intelligent spacetime?
[quote=“martin-peter-clarke, post:79, topic:7725”]
Increasing complexity of behaviour with net processing power is a deterministic combinatoric consequence as we all know, what’s new? How does that feed back in to the meaningless proposition of quasi-intelligent spacetime?
Natura Artis Magistra.
Nature has taught us “Cause and Effect”, “Mathematical determinism”. “Patterns”.
What more do you want to learn from Nature, before you can accept the quasi intelligent universal processes ?
The expressed universal regularities in reality is what gave rise to the concept of God in the first place!