Automatic cell activity (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, April 24, 2013, 17:01 (4232 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: It would seem, then, that like humans bacteria use their materials, instead of their materials using them. They take individual decisions, communicate and cooperate. At the very least this should make you pause before you go on insisting that the cell IS an automaton, and it provides ample reason for you once more to heed McClintock's call for more research into how much knowledge cells have of themselves. Come out of your box, David!-DAVID: You can anthropomorphize bacteria all you wish but they still are automatons, responding to chemical signals automatically. Why not recognize a God who can give bacteria such marvelous protections, they can live their lives, as they have for 3.5 billion years without having a thought or an organ of thought. -There is a dislocation in this argument. If I believed in God and if I believed in the "intelligent cell", I would say to you: "Why not recognize a God who can give bacteria and his other inventions the ability to think and make their own decisions?" You seem to take this hypothesis as an argument against God, but just like Darwin's theory, it is perfectly compatible with belief in him. -DAVID: I haven't met a thoughtful molecule yet. But they certainly have reactions, none of them mental or emotional. To paraphrase G. Stein: a molecule is a molecule is a molecule; a string of atoms with electrical characteristics acting in a quantum fashion. No more, no less. Your lack of understanding organic chemistry has your reasoning in a box.-Yes, I lack understanding of organic chemistry, which is why I depend on experts for my information. You have drawn attention to the work of several such experts, only to find that one (Talbott) explicitly says that cells are not automatons, while a Nobel Prize-winning geneticist (McClintock) calls for research into "the extent of cellular self-knowledge". Why, then, must I accept your view that cells are automatons? Similarly, I take it seriously when a team of experts inform us that bacteria have individual freedom, make difficult choices between selfish and selfless behaviour, communicate with their neighbours about their choices, weigh their decisions carefully. These are not metaphors, and the findings could hardly offer clearer evidence of individual intelligence. The fact that bacteria do not show human emotions, and that you have never met a thoughtful molecule, does not make me want to dismiss Talbott, McClintock or the researchers from Rice and Tel Aviv Universities and the Harvard Medical School. Even you agreed that McClintock "is right to ask for that study of cellular self-knowledge." If it is right for her, why is not right for me? But perhaps I'm able to take these ideas seriously because my reasoning is NOT in a box. I have not made up my mind, and so I'm reluctant to dismiss the work of scientists who do understand organic chemistry, even if their ideas run contrary to those of my science mentor!