This blog is intended to be a discussion of topics and issues in science. The comments, discussions, essays, and links are those of their individual authors and not necessarily those of any particular institution or any other individual.
This paper seemed to be implying that random events are responsible for the evolution of adaptive behavior in animals and humans. I did not fully understand what the researchers were trying to imply by the first two examples. However, I believe they were stating that seemingly organized systems can arrive from purely entropic factors. The last two examples certainly demonstrate that random acts can lead to the completion of a simple task by animals. However, the researchers are extrapolating from very little data to arrive at their final conclusions. This is certainly an interesting theory. However, long-term studies in animal behavior would be needed to validate the authors’ conclusions. I personally believe that the authors are just observing statistical probabilities and interpreting them as sophisticated social and cognitive behaviors.
May I first say that I absolutely enjoy the included “geek chic” tag? That is so funny. I feel like this paper discussion should be taking place on an episode of “The Big Bang Theory.” I agree with Mike, that these physicists are stretching. I mean one of their conclusive tests involved different sized disks (what did that have to with anything anyways?). I am not sure if any of the tests were really conclusive, but more of opinion based and nebulous. Yet, they clung to their belief that the principle of entropy was responsible for the evolution of adaptive behavior in animals and humans. I also read the paper about entropy and intelligence. A similar problem arose because the paper argues that intelligent behavior (how do you quantify that?) can be reduced to maximizing one's options, which is easy to quantify. However, the paper cannot explain how intelligent behavior evolved in the first place and why it needs to increase its future options. What does maximizing options even mean? So a person is intelligent because of entropy forcing them to increase their options to survive? How then do you explain people who are lazy? They are trying to decrease their energy output by finding easier ways to do things. On the other hand there are the Leslie Knope’s of the world who put everything they have into their passions. They do not necessarily seek out the easiest way to do things, but they adapt and increase their options to achieve their goals. In conclusion, I think that the authors are oversimplifying a complex system. They seem to be forgetting the fundamental rule of statistics, which is: correlation does not determine causation.
This article was quite intriguing to read. I was astonished at the immense speculation that fortified this letter. Something that I found to be most interesting was that the topic was the possible connection between increase in intelligence and maximization of entropy, yet the research criteria were based on controlled formulations which is the complete opposite of entropy. I was even more confused with the inverted pendulum representing bipedal locomotion. They found that casual entropic forcing of the cart resulted in the "successful seeing-up and upright stabilization of an initially downward-hanging pole," but how is it at all entropic forces if the researchers are facilitating the forces? The most spectacular part of this letter was in their conclusion they stated that the systems "exhibited sophisticated spontaneous behaviors associated with the human ‘‘cognitive niche,’’ including tool use and social cooperation," I supposed my biggest question was how did non-human, inanimate objects demonstrate a human "cognitive niche?"
This paper was... Interesting, for lack of a better word. This whole idea of the relationship between intelligence and entropy kind of boggles my mind. To me, intelligence is rather immeasurable. Although ants may be considered very intelligent insects, they are insignificant compared to the intelligence of humans. The intelligence of humans is based upon the number of connections that the neurons are able to make. More connections=more intelligence. Thus, more order within the brain corresponds to more intelligence. In this way, one would think that the less entropy there is in a system, the more intelligence there would be. However, this is not what these physicists are saying.
This paper is ultimately based upon the second law of thermodynamics, which says the entropy of the universe is ever-increasing (in such a way that internal components arrange themselves). By this theory, intelligent systems could arise from random and disorderly events.
This idea of the physics of intelligence was tested in this paper using a pendulum and other simple systems. They interpreted the information that they retrieved from their experiments as indications that systems move toward configurations that increase their ability to respond to further change. This is indicative of adaptive intelligence and promotes the idea that entropy and intelligence correlate. However, much more must go into this study than a particle that arranges itself at the center of box. If one wants to conclusively say that higher entropy leads to higher intelligence, there must be an apparent physical correlation that not only "suggests" that the two are interrelated, but "proves" such. As with many other developing theories, this must be further tested and explored.
It's interesting that Physics can now studied using deductive logic instead of starting from empirical evidence. While many scientists take the "bottom-up" approach, beginning with data and research and building grand theories upon their findings, it seems that many physicists nowadays start their investigations with overarching theories and explanations of how the world works. Einstein largely took this approach: Instead of trying to find the elusive "ether" that light traveled through, he began with his own intuition, following logical paths to reach his conclusions......The reason this article seems so bizarre is because of this "top-down" approach that is so popular in Physics. Although discussing the effects of entropy (which are random), the researchers construct a carefully controlled experiment. I find this deeply ironic. It would be interesting to meet these scientists and see what they think about in their day-to-day lives.
This paper seemed to be implying that random events are responsible for the evolution of adaptive behavior in animals and humans. I did not fully understand what the researchers were trying to imply by the first two examples. However, I believe they were stating that seemingly organized systems can arrive from purely entropic factors. The last two examples certainly demonstrate that random acts can lead to the completion of a simple task by animals. However, the researchers are extrapolating from very little data to arrive at their final conclusions. This is certainly an interesting theory. However, long-term studies in animal behavior would be needed to validate the authors’ conclusions. I personally believe that the authors are just observing statistical probabilities and interpreting them as sophisticated social and cognitive behaviors.
ReplyDeleteMay I first say that I absolutely enjoy the included “geek chic” tag? That is so funny. I feel like this paper discussion should be taking place on an episode of “The Big Bang Theory.” I agree with Mike, that these physicists are stretching. I mean one of their conclusive tests involved different sized disks (what did that have to with anything anyways?). I am not sure if any of the tests were really conclusive, but more of opinion based and nebulous. Yet, they clung to their belief that the principle of entropy was responsible for the evolution of adaptive behavior in animals and humans.
ReplyDeleteI also read the paper about entropy and intelligence. A similar problem arose because the paper argues that intelligent behavior (how do you quantify that?) can be reduced to maximizing one's options, which is easy to quantify. However, the paper cannot explain how intelligent behavior evolved in the first place and why it needs to increase its future options. What does maximizing options even mean? So a person is intelligent because of entropy forcing them to increase their options to survive? How then do you explain people who are lazy? They are trying to decrease their energy output by finding easier ways to do things. On the other hand there are the Leslie Knope’s of the world who put everything they have into their passions. They do not necessarily seek out the easiest way to do things, but they adapt and increase their options to achieve their goals. In conclusion, I think that the authors are oversimplifying a complex system. They seem to be forgetting the fundamental rule of statistics, which is: correlation does not determine causation.
I love how you manage to include The Big Bang Theory show and a shout-out to one of my personal heroes...Leslie Knope...into this post.
DeleteThis article was quite intriguing to read. I was astonished at the immense speculation that fortified this letter. Something that I found to be most interesting was that the topic was the possible connection between increase in intelligence and maximization of entropy, yet the research criteria were based on controlled formulations which is the complete opposite of entropy. I was even more confused with the inverted pendulum representing bipedal locomotion. They found that casual entropic forcing of the cart resulted in the "successful seeing-up and upright stabilization of an initially downward-hanging pole," but how is it at all entropic forces if the researchers are facilitating the forces? The most spectacular part of this letter was in their conclusion they stated that the systems "exhibited sophisticated spontaneous behaviors associated
ReplyDeletewith the human ‘‘cognitive niche,’’ including tool use and
social cooperation," I supposed my biggest question was how did non-human, inanimate objects demonstrate a human "cognitive niche?"
Good point, Gisselle!
DeleteThis paper was... Interesting, for lack of a better word. This whole idea of the relationship between intelligence and entropy kind of boggles my mind. To me, intelligence is rather immeasurable. Although ants may be considered very intelligent insects, they are insignificant compared to the intelligence of humans. The intelligence of humans is based upon the number of connections that the neurons are able to make. More connections=more intelligence. Thus, more order within the brain corresponds to more intelligence. In this way, one would think that the less entropy there is in a system, the more intelligence there would be. However, this is not what these physicists are saying.
ReplyDeleteThis paper is ultimately based upon the second law of thermodynamics, which says the entropy of the universe is ever-increasing (in such a way that internal components arrange themselves). By this theory, intelligent systems could arise from random and disorderly events.
This idea of the physics of intelligence was tested in this paper using a pendulum and other simple systems. They interpreted the information that they retrieved from their experiments as indications that systems move toward configurations that increase their ability to respond to further change. This is indicative of adaptive intelligence and promotes the idea that entropy and intelligence correlate. However, much more must go into this study than a particle that arranges itself at the center of box. If one wants to conclusively say that higher entropy leads to higher intelligence, there must be an apparent physical correlation that not only "suggests" that the two are interrelated, but "proves" such. As with many other developing theories, this must be further tested and explored.
It's interesting that Physics can now studied using deductive logic instead of starting from empirical evidence. While many scientists take the "bottom-up" approach, beginning with data and research and building grand theories upon their findings, it seems that many physicists nowadays start their investigations with overarching theories and explanations of how the world works. Einstein largely took this approach: Instead of trying to find the elusive "ether" that light traveled through, he began with his own intuition, following logical paths to reach his conclusions......The reason this article seems so bizarre is because of this "top-down" approach that is so popular in Physics. Although discussing the effects of entropy (which are random), the researchers construct a carefully controlled experiment. I find this deeply ironic. It would be interesting to meet these scientists and see what they think about in their day-to-day lives.
ReplyDelete