Revisiting convergence (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, June 22, 2015, 14:30 (3224 days ago) @ dhw


> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/jul/09/how-you-consist-trillions-tiny-mac... 
> DAVID: This book makes the point I make. Our cells autonomously run the machines of our body automatically. Please explain how complexity appeared 3.5 billion years ago to give bacteria the appearance of 'minds'. It requires a planning mind if you believe in cause and effect.
> 
> dhw: I wonder what evidence he has that important innovations such as sexual organs, brains, eyes, hearts, livers, lungs etc. were already present 3.5 billion years ago.-The only point he made concerned single cells being very complex from the beginning. why do you bring up much more modern organs?-> dhw: Of course I haven't read the book, but I see nothing here to contradict my argument that intelligence was present in the first cells and grew in complexity with multicellularity.-And I state that the 'intelligence' is in the intelligent information that automatically runs the cells-> dhw: I have always agreed that once an innovation is in place, the cells automatically fulfil their role. The inventive intelligence only comes into play when conditions change, leading to adaptation or - through exploitation of new opportunities - innovation. (Otherwise, extinction.)-Once multicellularity appears (we don't know how) the genome mechanisms with epigenetics allow adaptation, but so far the speciation process is still unknown, just assumed to automatically occur.-> dhw: As regards ‘how' complexity appeared, I assume it was through the cooperation of cells, whether it was 3.5 billion years ago or not.-You assumption is guess work, because science really doesn't know how it happened.-> dhw: And nobody knows how bacteria acquired their ‘minds' (according to many specialists) or the ‘appearance of minds' (according to you), because nobody knows the origin of life/reproduction/the evolutionary mechanism/sentience/ cognition/ consciousness etc.-Exactly!-> dhw: Only if Falkowski goes on to argue that the complexity requires your God's planning can you claim that he makes the same point as you. Even if he does, it remains a matter of speculative interpretation.-I am happy with my interpretation.