“Most importantly, we are seeking a characterization of the patterns themselves that are produced by evidence-collecting, evidence-organizing entities, and are later used to exert flexible influence over the future.”
This would be very nice, but may turn out to be as difficult as seeking an explanation for how cats purr in terms of quantum field theory. It’s quite possible that there are a lot of abstraction layers in between physical patterns and agentive behaviour.
A living, otherwise fairly typical cat? Absolutely yes, and not even near a boundary for the concept. Dead cat? I wouldn’t say so.
As I see it, the term “agent” is very much broader than “sentient”. It covers pretty much anything capable of taking different actions based on internal information processing and external senses. Essentially all living things are agents, and plenty of nonliving things.
So the bacteria within a dead cat (or even a living one) would qualify, but I don’t think you could reasonably ascribe “actions based on internal information” to a dead cat as any sort of single entity.
It seems to me that examples in the fuzzy boundaries are more like simple thermostats and viruses than cats.
Viruses are generally very much simpler than bacteria, yes.
My possibly flawed understanding is that most viruses don’t really do anything at all by themselves. Once they encounter cells with the right receptors, they get ingested and (again only for the right types of cell) the internal machinery processes them in a way that makes more viruses.
I suppose you could think of that as “sensing” cells and “acting” to get inside and hijack them, but it’s a bit of a stretch and why I’m not sure that they should be included. From an information-processing point of view, I think of them more like passive info-hazards than active agents.
In principle, if something evolves, then I think it’s worth noticing. Also, recent events have shown just how impactful viruses can be. Which is interesting given how little they seem to do of:
‘collecting and organizing evidence to exert flexible influence over the future’
I think it’s fair to characterize them as ‘largely exploiting static features in the world’ - alas, we tend to create/are such things. And given our massive global success, things able to exploit what (weaknesses) we have in common can become quite formidable. For all our ‘immense’ differences, we aren’t so different after all.*
*Though I probably should look into the impacts of cultural variation.
Yes, I would have much less hesitation in viewing a virus species as a multi-bodied agent with evolution as a driving algorithm than a single virion as an agent.
“Most importantly, we are seeking a characterization of the patterns themselves that are produced by evidence-collecting, evidence-organizing entities, and are later used to exert flexible influence over the future.”
This would be very nice, but may turn out to be as difficult as seeking an explanation for how cats purr in terms of quantum field theory. It’s quite possible that there are a lot of abstraction layers in between physical patterns and agentive behaviour.
Is a cat an agent?
A living, otherwise fairly typical cat? Absolutely yes, and not even near a boundary for the concept. Dead cat? I wouldn’t say so.
As I see it, the term “agent” is very much broader than “sentient”. It covers pretty much anything capable of taking different actions based on internal information processing and external senses. Essentially all living things are agents, and plenty of nonliving things.
So the bacteria within a dead cat (or even a living one) would qualify, but I don’t think you could reasonably ascribe “actions based on internal information” to a dead cat as any sort of single entity.
It seems to me that examples in the fuzzy boundaries are more like simple thermostats and viruses than cats.
‘Actions based on internal information’ seems as descriptive of bacteria, as it does of viruses. Are they usually less complex, or something?
Viruses are generally very much simpler than bacteria, yes.
My possibly flawed understanding is that most viruses don’t really do anything at all by themselves. Once they encounter cells with the right receptors, they get ingested and (again only for the right types of cell) the internal machinery processes them in a way that makes more viruses.
I suppose you could think of that as “sensing” cells and “acting” to get inside and hijack them, but it’s a bit of a stretch and why I’m not sure that they should be included. From an information-processing point of view, I think of them more like passive info-hazards than active agents.
In principle, if something evolves, then I think it’s worth noticing. Also, recent events have shown just how impactful viruses can be. Which is interesting given how little they seem to do of:
‘collecting and organizing evidence to exert flexible influence over the future’
I think it’s fair to characterize them as ‘largely exploiting static features in the world’ - alas, we tend to create/are such things. And given our massive global success, things able to exploit what (weaknesses) we have in common can become quite formidable. For all our ‘immense’ differences, we aren’t so different after all.*
*Though I probably should look into the impacts of cultural variation.
Yes, I would have much less hesitation in viewing a virus species as a multi-bodied agent with evolution as a driving algorithm than a single virion as an agent.