|
|
|
|
|
|
by stefanu
4244 days ago
|
|
|
I don't think we can equate complexity of a tropical thunderstorm to the complexity as described in the article. The discussed complexity arises from local connections (be it persistent bonds or repeated interactions) between entities. While interactions in the thunderstorm might seem "complex" to our mind, they are not "complex" from the point of view of "complex systems", they are rather "complicated". Moreover thunderstorm network (if we consider the interactions of particles in the thunderstorm) is very transient. No feedback loops emerge in the system (to my understanding of thunderstorm). Also the system does not adapt to the surrounding environment through it's reconfiguration of internal connections. Thunderstorm lacks many properties of the complex systems discussed in the article. |
|
|
I agree with that view.
The important part is (a) that it does not have computation and (b) regardless of complexity, computation is not consciousness. Saying it and expecting it to "magically emerge from it" does not make that hypothesis any truer.
They are throwing darts in the dart and making it sound cool.
But, okay, I'll be nice and not troll the effort of making this subject cool and let's not put theory against theory because is not productive.
What about seeing something testable?
Take a Paramecium.
It does not have many neurons, so it doesn't have synapses but it still learns where the food is and reacts to anestesics as we do.
What about that?
That radical theory published there is not predicting the Paramecium, much less anything about the one in the Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Bring me news on how quantum-biology is behaving down there and we might actually get somewhere.