Cell Memories (Identity)

by dhw, Wednesday, July 23, 2014, 09:34 (3559 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The evolutionary argument I am putting forward ...is that cooperation between intelligent cellular communities may account for the innovations that have driven evolution onwards. My theist version would be that God designed cellular intelligence so that cells would combine in a vast variety of ways leading to the higgledy-piggledy richness of the evolutionary bush. I don't know why this should make no sense to you, when you are fully aware of the research carried out by Margulis and others. The difference between us therefore has nothing to do with ID as such. The difference lies in identifying what your God may have designed, and in your belief that from the very start he planned evolution to end up with humans.-DAVID: Your theory as stated is attempting to have cell intelligence cause a cooperation between them to create advances in complexity. -Yes.-DAVID: My only comment is that I think the intelligence is in the information coded into the genomes of the cells. We may have a disagreement as to the origin of the information. I strongly doubt it developed by chance and natural selection.-I have left open the question of how the intelligence originated (which leaves plenty of room for your God), but have made it clear ten thousand times that I do not believe in chance. Please stick to the point, which is how evolution works. -DAVID: That genome information is the 'intelligence' in the cells. I think cells act automatically....-And that is the difference between us. I do not say you are wrong, but I demand equal rights for the theory suggested by Margulis, Shapiro, and Albrecht-Buehler that cells/cell communities are not automata but have intelligence and sentience of their own.
 
DAVID: I think the information contains a 'drive to complexity' the code for which is not yet uncovered. I know your thinking originates from pan-psychism theories. -No, it originates from the research of the above-named experts in the field. Certain versions of panpsychism provide a possible explanation of how the universe and life have evolved. One of those versions is that there is some form of “intelligence” or “mental aspect” within all things, but you reject that unless we call the intelligence God, and then you are all in favour. You don't seem to realize that your panentheism is a form of panpsychism.
 
DAVID: I differ, as you note, in that I think the information is a strong guide, and as a result the cells cooperate with each other under strong controls, and never on their own. -I'm not sure to what extent you are juggling with the word “information” here. The information provided by the environment certainly provides a strong guide. The information that constitutes the intelligence of the cell community (e.g. knowing how to perceive, to process perceptions, to work out strategies, to communicate with other cell communities) will also be limited, just as our own intelligence is limited, and in that sense may be called controlled (i.e. by its limitations). This does not in any way preclude the non-automatic, autonomous, perceptive, communicative, decision-making faculty that some of us would define as "intelligence".- 
DAVID: Davies and I agree. The arrival of sentient humans who can unravel the workings of the universe is an extremely significant outcome of evolution, one that raises many philosophic questions. 'How' is one issue, but 'why' is a much more important point. Chance? In my view, no way. -As above, we agreed yonks ago to stop harping on about chance. You know I don't believe in it.-DAVID: Work backward from there and it makes a strong case for theism or even a case for deism. I don't see any case for atheism. Only if one insists upon absolute proof (impossible) does agnosticism appear. So some of us develop a faith, and some do not. Personal choice.-A reasonably fair summary, except that as an agnostic I personally do not demand the impossible “absolute proof”. I demand only a convincing case either way, and while chance fails to convince me, I find the suggestion of an eternal came-from-nothing super-consciousness capable of creating and manipulating universes and bacteria equally unconvincing. Not being willing to take a blind leap of faith does not mean that “one insists on absolute proof”.