Cambrian Explosion: afterthought (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, October 08, 2013, 15:54 (4064 days ago) @ David Turell

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.-DAVID: Not QED. The cells automatically use intelligent information.-The Mayweather sidestep. Please, once and for all, give us your definition of intelligence (not the MI5 form, but the doggy form).-dhw: Quevli, who coined the term "cell intelligence" wrote: "the cell is a conscious intelligent being, and, by reason thereof, plans and builds all plants and animals in the same manner that man constructs houses, railroads and other structures." This is not a metaphor.-DAVID: All I can do is disagree with you, Margulis, A-B, and Quevli. I still view these as metaphorical statements. Venter agrees with me. See the last post.-Dhw: [Venter] 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.-DAVID: 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.-You have not explained how the above statement, or Margulis's, can be called metaphorical. Yes, materialists are bound to believe that life is "just a complex of chemical reactions", but that does not explain how chemicals have produced innovations and self-awareness. Even Venter still has to choose between random mutations, your God, and cooperation between intelligent cells. Margulis was an agnostic and A-B does not base his findings on any philosophical position, so we have at least two experts in the field who are not out to proselytize. Do by all means side with the atheistic majority (as far as it suits you to do so), but don't dismiss the minority with terms like "kooks" or "poppycock". That puts you on a par with folk who dismiss God as a "delusion". Besides, as a man who rejects the views of 90% of physical scientists (plus 50% of medical scientists), since when did you put your trust in the scientific majority?-DAVID: Cells do not think, and that is what you are proposing.-I do not propose that cells think like humans (Margulis is very particular on that point), and I do not believe that intelligence is confined to human-type thinking, as you indicated in your first attempt at a definition. That is why it's essential for you to clarify what you mean by the word.-DAVID: Yes, we are talking about how cells communicate [...]Molecular signals are simply that, one molecule activating another which is the only way cells communicate.-There is no argument about this. It is also how our human cells communicate. But WHAT they communicate is a message created by the intelligence of the cellular community that forms the human brain. If I decide to perform an action, the message passes through the relevant molecules in my body in the manner you have described. But "I decide" is the non-automatic part of the process (unless humans are automatons too). What part of the cell or the cell community decides which message is to be passed on? According to some scientists, it is the intelligent 'cell brain', or centrosome, or Constructive Planner. According to you, it is God.-DAVID: Evolution did not advance by your theory. I admit we don't know how, but I believe your approach is an impossible way from my knowledge of biochemistry.-From your knowledge of biochemistry, how could the earliest cells have been preprogrammed to produce the billions of innovations leading to humans? You have told us repeatedly that we are far from solving all the mysteries of the cell. Since you admit to not knowing how evolution advanced, why not keep an open mind?