You also might have missed the fact that sound waves are sensed by Anthropods by means of antennae, respiratory nerves and the six exoskeletal limbs connected with the nervous system.
Some insects use sound to call their mates, so how do you think that they are sound deaf!
Your final argument too was uneducated, so please read about insects a bit more before arguing with a retired biochemistry professor. I was not trying to debate with you at all, but I was in agreement with you and elaborating on details to increase your knowledge when I realised our common interest.
The cockroach is much more intelligent than you believe it is, but it is not as intelligent as we are for sure.
They are superior survivors and exceed us at that.
Kind regards. _________________ Hemetis
Last edited by HEMETIS on Sat Jul 23, 2005 6:57 am; edited 1 time in total
You also might have missed the fact that sound waves are sensed by Anthropods by means of antennae, respiratory nerves and the six exoskeletal limbs connected with the nervous system.
Actually I did think about how the antennae may pick up certain wavelengths of sound and even knew you would bring it up! However it’s not a true auditory organ. It's more like how deaf humans can listen to music; they can feel the vibration of certain wavelengths of the music.
Quote:
Some insects use sound to call their mates, so how do you think that they are sound deaf!
Well I did say most insects not all insects.
Quote:
Your final argument too was uneducated, so please read about insects a bit more before arguing with a retired biochemistry professor. I was not trying to debate with you at all, but I was in agreement with you and elaborating on details to increase your knowledge when I realised our common interest.
Well this Software Engineer, with an MS, felt that certain statements you made were conveying a complexity that wasn't really necessary. For example the issue of the risk assessment algorithm you empowered the roach with isn't required to get the behavior observed. Also the signal to noise ratio idea with vision is far more complicated than an olfactory sensor that could perform the same process with far fewer neural computational resources. Occam's razor is my motto.
Your final argument too was uneducated, so please read about insects a bit more before arguing with a retired biochemistry professor. I was not trying to debate with you at all, but I was in agreement with you and elaborating on details to increase your knowledge when I realised our common interest.
Well this Software Engineer, with an MS, felt that certain statements you made were conveying a complexity that wasn't really necessary. For example the issue of the risk assessment algorithm you empowered the roach with isn't required to get the behavior observed. Also the signal to noise ratio idea with vision is far more complicated than an olfactory sensor that could perform the same process with far fewer neural computational resources. Occam's razor is my motto.
One has to be cockroach before one can be absolutely certain if one's behaviour is taking a risk or not.
However, many colleagues have reported observations regarding the cockroach's departure from a covered area into an open area as being "cautious" and "watchful" with increased activity in the antennal-swing.
I remember that there was strong debate at defining covered versus uncovered until the height was squeezed down to twice that of the roach as covered, which was equally opposed by another opinion as by being the space that allows any "known" predator to have access to the roach. The debate then was transferred to its final stage as "known to who or what?".
My own conclusion was that regardless of the absolute truth, the roach did demonstrate a complex behaviour regarding survival traits that can only be explained by assuming that the roach is instinctively equipped with a risk-evaluation-algorithm.
My deep interest was because I was seeking the ultimate Artificial Intelligence Model (AIM).
From Neruobiochemistry, to consciousness in silicon, to AIM, I have outlined the minimal design of a robotic "creature" than can apparently seem to behave like natural creatures.
A creature has a set of possible controls, a set of data (information) acquisition, and a set of instinctive algorithms and some creatures have an additional learned algorithms.
Needs of survival are always "weighed" against competitive obstacles to evaluate the odds of success as a motivator or inhibitor, and I am strictly speaking within a biochemical complex picture, some parts of which is triggered by external information through senses.
Simulating behavioural patterns only will create zombies and will never create Intelligent robotic machines.
I am quite aware that we have had some success in creating Pure Reflexive systems that can emulate intelligent responses, but are they?
_________________ Hemetis
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Predictions
Community
Links and Downloads
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.zapfuture.com/images/valid-rss.GIF "Validate my RSS feed")
![[Valid Atom 0.3]](http://www.zapfuture.com/images/valid-atom.GIF "Validate my Atom 0.3 feed")