Joined: May 2007
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 23 2012,06:11)|
|Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 22 2012,16:00)|
|Let's see if I'm following this. Professor Zhang made use of some properties of atoms and molecules to construct circuit components (logic gates?) for a computer processor, a good bit smaller than the ones currently in common use.|
If that makes those atoms and molecules intelligent, then the use of diodes (is that the right word?) on circuit boards would make diodes intelligent, and the use of transistors in earlier computers would make the transistors intelligent, too. Not to mention the beads on an abacus, or the marks on a slide rule.
One diode, or one transistor, by itself? I see no benefit to applying the word "intelligence" to single components that way. Or even to a single neuron by itself, either.
Another thought here: the properties of atoms and molecules make them act in pretty much the same way in the same situation, or at least with fixed odds for each result if quantum stuff is involved. But one of the aspects of intelligence is that beings possessing it vary their behavior at times, sometimes unpredictably.
Granted, an evolving gene pool does share that one property with known intelligence, along with the property of keep a record of things that worked. Although, it doesn't keep a record of things that didn't work, and should therefore be avoided in the future, nor does it have an effective way of doing a massive rework of a feature that has become inefficient or risky. But that's the gene pool, not the individual organisms and especially not the individual genes or the DNA molecules.
I have been talking about information like this with coding ideas that work in the model:
Algorithmic Self-Assembly of DNA, Thesis by Erik Winfree
DNA computing is one application where the concept of "molecular intelligence" applies, not the only one.
All you have been doing is preaching god knows what religion in between shovelling piles of verbal manure.
You do not grasp the basics of what a scientific theory must do or for that matter can do.
That indicates zero education OR learning ability. I suspect the latter.
You do not grasp the basics of logic or fallacy. I suspect due to your beliefs you never will, since people like you are recklessly & pathologically incapable of reason and or willfully & blissfully anti-intellectual.
Your philosophy if you have any is to steal others genuine toil.
Don't worry though, I can't see them wasting their time on you.
Quote mining & cherry picking are the lowest form of disrespect to intellectual honesty.
Not that a god nagger like you would worry about that.
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his
clownDaveTard suit." dogdidit
Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror. DAVE TARD