Cell Memories (Identity)

by dhw, Thursday, July 10, 2014, 14:45 (3571 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Why do you insert the word automatic? When neuroscientists trace chemical reactions in the human brain, are these the cause of or the response to intelligent thought? I'm not denying that cellular “intelligence” is difficult to define, and it should certainly not be equated with the self-awareness of human intelligence. Nor do I deny that much of cellular activity is automatic. The cellular community that is “me” depends on a vast range of automatic cellular activities. But that doesn't make “me” an automaton. ....The application of “cellular intelligence” to evolution solves many of the problems associated with the theory, so why not at least keep an open mind?-DAVID: You have jumped toa whole body interpretation of what I presented. All I pointed out is that in the individual cell there are automatic responses to problems. You want to expand this to whole organism intelligence of some sort, not brain directed. You may have your theory to comfort you, but my kidney is automatic as is my liver, and a bacterium reacts through biochemical modifying molecular reactions controlled by information in the DNA. Our difference is that I ascribe that information to intelligent activity in creating that information, and you ascribe it to ? That is where I stumble in trying to follow you. I need cause and effect. You need it for the BB as we have agreed, but not in biology.-In order to communicate and interact, you have to have more than one cell. It's the interaction between cells that demonstrates their individual intelligence. There are two distinct phases in your argument: 1) how the cell operates, and 2) how the intelligence of the cell originated. I can no more answer the latter than I can tell you how our own intelligence originated. I notice you did not answer my question: “When neuroscientists trace chemical reactions in the human brain, are these the cause of or the response to intelligent thought?” In other words, can we be sure that thought is composed only of chemical processes? The theory of the “intelligent cell” is based on the research done by people such as Margulis, Shapiro and Albrecht-Buehler. It is they who argue that cells are “sentient beings” which act intelligently. Our liver and kidney cell communities act independently of our own intelligence, but that doesn't mean they have no “intelligence” of their own (though not human type self-awareness). I don't know to what extent the advocates of cellular intelligence have investigated human organs, but they have certainly investigated bacteria, and their conclusions are that bacteria are intelligent and sentient. I don't know. I'm a layman. But I'm not prepared as you are to say they're wrong. And if they're right, there is a wonderfully logical chain of cause and effect which can be applied to the progress of evolution. You insist on my telling you how cells got their intelligence and how it actually works. I don't know how we got ours or how ours works. Nor do you. But not knowing where from or how does not mean it isn't there.