JFS> Scientists who work with animals (AKA rat psychologists) have a short
summary of how their subjects behave: "Under carefully controlled
experimental conditions, the subject will do whatever the hell it wants
to."
Ricardo S> I think this points to the fundamental issue: What is "want"?
Animals vs machines: wanting vs not wanting. My impression is that we use
"want" when the origin of the behavior is mysterious to us. If it is well
known to us -as when programmed- it ceases to be mysterious and then stops
being "wanting". This is an epistemological issue of us as observers. Not a
differential property of the systemus observed
That's an important issue, and I admit that the verb 'want' is rather
complex. But there is a large collection of tests that any life form from
bacteria on up can pass, but no non-living thing (other than a human
invention) can pass.
Simplest example: A bacterium swimming upstream in a glucose gradient. A
ship can go upstream, but only because humans designed it to do so.
But you can't find any phsycial or chemical process in the universe that
can perform the kinds of goal-directed prpcesses that living things do,
Even bacteria do immensely complex processes, especially colonies of
bacteria, such as the plaque on your teeth.
A single bacterium, swimming by itself, is extremely fragile, and it will
be swallowed up by something bigger very quickly. But bacteria in a colony
have very complex signaling systems for protecting themselves against the
toothbrush monster or the mouthwash poison or excesive heat, cold, or
whatever. Some of the outer ones may be killed, but the colony will
survive and recover.
For more about these issues, see "Biological and Psycholinguistic
influences on Architectures for Natural Lnguage Processing",
https://jfsowa.com/talks/bionlp.pdf
Slide 45 has the comment about bacteria.
John