Cambrian Explosion: afterthought (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, October 08, 2013, 02:08 (4043 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw:In which case I presume you now accept the definition of intelligence as "the ability to gather, process and exchange information, communicate and cooperate with other organisms, take decisions, solve problems." All of these abilities are present in cells and your dog, and therefore cells and your dog are intelligent. QED.-Not QED. The cells automatically use intelligent information.-> 
> dhw; He agrees with you that cells are automatons, not that Margulis and Co are speaking metaphorically. Where is the metaphor in the statement: "the cell is a conscious intelligent being"? As an atheist, Venter thinks life consists ONLY of chemicals, which might not make him your ideal buddy. What we now have are some scientists agreeing that cells are automatons, and some not agreeing.-I would judge that since most folks like Venter are atheists they would be on the side of automatic cells. The only way I can accept Margulis is as a metaphor. Remember she also deep-ended on the Gaia hypothesis; there is a kook side to her.
> 
> dhw: Our current knowledge of cellular biochemistry has no explanation for evolutionary innovation, and of course it cannot provide any evidence of a "tooth fairy" preprogramming the first cells with lungs, legs and livers.
> 
> DAVID: Some of us can make intelligent guesses, but in general you are correct. No one knows how species and new organs appear.
> 
> dhw: So you can stop protesting that my proposal doesn't fit our current knowledge of cellular biochemistry. -I'll still keep in protesting. Cells do not think, an that is what you are proposing.
 
> dhw: Not for the first time, you have left out the fact that my hypothesis ONLY seeks to explain how evolution works, and leaves open the question of how the cells became intelligent in the first place. The hypothesis can be theistic (God designed the "cell brain" that did the designing) or atheistic (it evolved of its own accord). Again you are confusing it with the atheistic form of panpsychism.-I am not confused and I understand your stated position above is what you have constantly stated.-> 
> dhw: We are not talking here of how cells communicate ... we are talking of what composes the messages that are to be communicated. A appears, and the human brain proceeds to decipher the meaning of A, to take decisions, to pass its decisions to B, C, D, all of which make their contribution before implementing the instructions issued by the human brain for dealing with A, thereby completing the feedback loop. You simply assume that your God preprogrammed the "cell brain" to do the same thing. Some scientists agree with you, and some don't.-Yes, we are talking about how cells commmunicate. That is the point of bbella's lecture. Molecular signals are simply that, one molecule activating another which is the only way cells communicate. No planning or thinking here. Evolution did not advance by your theory. I admit we don't know how, but I belive your approach is an impossible way from my knowledge of biochemistry.