As usual with questions related to mind and cognition, the definitions of the terms are nebulous to the point of meaninglessness until you explicitly state the definition you're using.
To say that slime molds "remember" things is to simply define the word "remember" to include: "chemical changes in biological organisms that persist over time". Using the word "remember" makes it seem like there's something more interesting going on, because it evokes our anthropocentric notions of vivid recollection and high level cognition.
As Djikstra stated decades ago, all of these nebulous questions are meaningless until you make them explicit. "The question of whether machines can think is about as relevant as the question of whether submarines can swim."
I had wondered the other day whether animal intelligence was either associated with or predicated on memory abilities. This paper[0] seemed at first blush to support that notion. Am I interpreting that correctly? Is there other supporting evidence? What are the problems with this idea?
I’m surprised there was no mention of experiments that involved reproduction. I’d be interested in how a single cell of slime mold spilt from th organism and left to reproduce for some time would fare.
TaupeRanger|7 years ago
To say that slime molds "remember" things is to simply define the word "remember" to include: "chemical changes in biological organisms that persist over time". Using the word "remember" makes it seem like there's something more interesting going on, because it evokes our anthropocentric notions of vivid recollection and high level cognition.
As Djikstra stated decades ago, all of these nebulous questions are meaningless until you make them explicit. "The question of whether machines can think is about as relevant as the question of whether submarines can swim."
perl4ever|7 years ago
sethrin|7 years ago
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784289/
ryanmercer|7 years ago
overcast|7 years ago
ComputerGuru|7 years ago
Isamu|7 years ago
trav4225|7 years ago