An Interesting Quote:
Can a leech do maths? ... instinct tells you that this bloodsucker can no more "do maths" than it can play the trombone. This is a superficial view born of the bogus assumption that maths requires a mind (Editorial, New Scientist, 20 June 1998).
Found in the Net.
Can a leech do maths? ... instinct tells you that this bloodsucker can no more "do maths" than it can play the trombone. This is a superficial view born of the bogus assumption that maths requires a mind (Editorial, New Scientist, 20 June 1998).
Found in the Net.
posted by N.V.Balaji | 10:39 PM
8 Comments:
Interesting and seems plausible. I didn't read the entire article. If we conceive of the trignometic routines as "burnt code" codified by nerve cell patterns, together with Darwin's important discovery that acquired characteristics can be inherited, yeah, it seems plausible. May be other species are doing the same too with other aspects of math. Makes you think of math in new dimension. May be cheetah is doing some variable calculus that I have so much trouble with:)
Now don't tell this to any body in Kansas. They will be running with this as proof of "intelligent design".
if only a spider could tell us its understanding of properties of materials while spinning a web or a kingfisher its understanding of refraction while picking a fish out of water or the bees tell us the chemistry behind the honey. would put a lot of PhDs out of job..
Very interesting theory within the realms of credibility.I tend to agree with srinivas that we need to be careful when propagating theories like this, you never know how people would take advantage of it like the kansas educational board which mandated schools to teach both intelligence(god created life) and darwin's theory to explain evolution of life in science classes
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
All-> I tend to believe that every structure in the universe (living or non-living) has got an inherent understanding of other structures of its interest. It Does not require any "Grey matter" for doing so.
The computer is a classical example of "doing math" with no brain. All it requires to do maths (or for that matter any rational activity) is just an algorithm and memory !
Srinivas->Thanks for reading. An interesting question to be answered is, who burns the code and who codifies it. A question, out of the realms of science, but still an interesting one to answer would be, why someone needs to burn and codify.
Ram-> Looks like You are venting your disreagrd for reasearchers :-). Never mind, just kidding. You have a valid point.
Venkat: Thanks for your comments. I beleive it is very difficult for anybody to understand the consequences as they are Consequences are so context sensistive.
Well if you ask Darwinists, they say they are not concerned with the "who" part. The urge to survive and the adaptative mutation has been proven to result in amazingly complex organs and functions and shedding of equally complex things that were not needed or proved as hindrance for survival. This whole question of "WHO & WHY" is a question that arises in human mind has no bearing to the natural process. This is what once my "Formal methods" Professor labeled as "mal-anthropomorphism" (of course in a different context).
One can explain that (again not being able to get out of human mind) codification is a simple and efficient way of propagation to the progeny. The droplets of water form spherical shape to reduce surface tension. Again this is an observation made with the human mind. But of course there are lot of phenomena that cannot be explained yet. My current thinking is mind and nature are not congruent and may never become. But I like to strive to see the mind line stay as close as possible to the nature.
Vetti officers can read this interesting link: New Yorker magazine is following the clash between the "intelligent" designers and the mainstream darwinists. There was a trial in Dover, Pensylvania on whether to include a 4 paragraph critique of Darwin's theory or not, in school books. Unfortunately it is not online. But the reporter who covered it has a Q&A.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/articles/051205on_onlineonly01
this other one came out 6 months ago.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact
Goofed up the links
here we go
Darwin on Trial
Why Intelligent Design isn't
Post a Comment
<< Home