Cell response to electric field (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, April 12, 2013, 13:31 (4244 days ago) @ David Turell

Last things firstAVID: You are misinterpreting Mc Clintock: She does not know the extent of self-knowledge within the cell, if any, but is saying the issue has to be explored, to be sure we are not missing anything.
 
That is far from saying, as you have done categorically, that the cell has no knowledge of itself.
 
DAVID: Talbott may dismiss 'automatism' but that is his way of accommodating his philosophy. In my mind his theory is simply wrong, but his objections to Darwinism are correct. Simply put, if you accept my scenario, God has to exist.-He would say your insistence on automatism is your way of accommodating your philosophy. And to his mind, your theory is simply wrong. And simply put, if you accept Dawkins' scenario, God doesn't exist.-And so to the main problem. In reply to my suggestion that knowledge and consciousness of the environment and of the organism's own potential, and the ability to use this information to invent a functioning NEW organ, constitute "intelligence", you wrote:
 
DAVID: "The cell responds to imbedded information, and does no thinking on its own." "Consciousness in this case is an automatic chemical response by cellular molecules, which trigger the change." "...you persist in not seeing the progression of events to prepare for evolution. God in His intelligence coded DNA to contain all the information cells would need to respond to the environment and complexify as necessary. The cell molecules respond automatically." -And of course you may well be right. Inventions like sexual reproduction, the digestive system, the immune system, blood circulation ... far more complex than anything we humans have ever come up with ... may be the result of what looks like thought but in fact is chemical responses by automatons. Every innovation leading from bacteria to the straightened spine and the hugely complex human brain may follow the same pattern, and maybe every innovation by every new organism is equally automatic: ant colonies, the navigational skills of monarch butterflies, and the rest of "Nature's Wonders". And this attribution of all innovations to chemical responses throughout the plant and animal kingdoms is borne out by science to the extent that science has never found any other explanation. Many scientists and philosophers follow the same line as you with regard to cellular behaviour (though they do not follow your theism), and they apply it to humans too, who are part of the animal kingdom. The general philosophical term for this, as you well know, is materialism, and in relation to humans it's anthropic mechanism. And since you are so firmly convinced that all cellular behaviour is a matter of chemical responses, and since all living creatures are composed of cells, why indeed should we ourselves not be classed as automatons? My 4-year-old grandson Keanu may have got it exactly right: "My brain tells me everything." The information comes in, the chemicals get to work, and out comes the answer or the new invention. After all, what is a computer or Beethoven's 9th, compared to the incalculable complexities of sexual reproduction? If I may adapt your comment on "Panpsychism and vitalism" about cells: "Humans appear to have thought...'Appear' is the key word. Humans do not think." -But you do not believe that humans are automatons (they have free will), and I remain open-minded on the subject. Perhaps you will understand, then, why I find this discussion confusingly inconsistent. I can grasp the argument that cells are automatons, but I see no logical reason why it should not apply to humans (God or no God). I can grasp the argument that humans are NOT automatons, but I see no logical reason why this should not apply to our fellow animals, plants, and cells (God or no God), especially in the context of evolutionary innovation. (As I said before, once the innovation is established, the cells will conform to the new pattern.) And so, since we don't have a clue how "intelligence" works, or how innovation works, why should we insist on any one theory to the exclusion of all others?