Intelligence & Evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, October 15, 2013, 15:51 (4056 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: But at least you have now withdrawn your claim that only humans can claim to be conscious. Thank you.-DAVID: I never claimed that. It was your assumption from my poor explanations.-We have had major problems over this because of your definition of intelligence. 6 October: it is "not just the use of information but being able to analyze concepts presented by that information, formulate new theories from those concepts. In other words what we humans do with our brains and consciousness." 9 October: "Intelligence is the ability to learn information, to recognize new situations, to reason out solutions or challenges, to think abstractly as Higgs did when he thought of his particle." 12 October: "The word consciousness can only be applied to the state of abstract reasoning I have referred to." You could scarcely be more explicit, but confusingly you also agree that your dog has a level of intelligence / consciousness below that of humans. I think the reason for your dodging around is that once you agree that there are levels of intelligence / consciousness below that of humans, you cannot draw a line. You accepted all the criteria I listed as being appropriate for animals and plants, but even though they applied equally to cells (e.g. the ability to process and exchange information, communicate with other organisms, take decisions etc.), you excluded them for no reason other than the fact that you believe cells to be preprogrammed automatons.
 
dhw: But organisms ARE groups of cells. And just as you believe consciousness emerges from the cooperation of billions of cells that make up the brain, I am suggesting that innovations may emerge from similarly cooperating cells. The whole is greater than the parts. There is not one of the attributes listed above that cannot be applied both to your dog and to cells, individually and in groups.-DAVID: Now you want "emergent" planning by groups of cells. Cells respond to each other automatically. No brains involved, no consciousness for abstract planning. Planning requires abstract thought. Hunt and peck will not work. The requirements for a kidney are too exact, adjusting sodium levels or pH to the second decimal place. -We are going round in circles. You assume that the huge communities of cells which can cooperate in order to produce consciousness (you don't know how) can't produce new organs ... although even with your divine preprogramming this is precisely what they do. Here's what actually happened, as far as we know: Ants/cells cooperated and built a city/a kidney. Here are two hypotheses for us evolutionists: 1) An unknown power preprogrammed cells one day to automatically turn into ants which would one day automatically cooperate to build a city, and it also preprogrammed other organisms containing cells which would one day automatically cooperate to make a kidney. They are all preprogrammed automatons. 2) Ants/cells have the ability to combine their intelligences to build a city/a kidney. We do not know how they acquired this intelligence. On another thread we talked of what is "reasonable". It would be interesting to know which of these two hypotheses seems more reasonable to others who read our posts. (See also the discussion with Matt under "Cell Memories".)-dhw: I'm afraid the fact that you believe your theory does not give you the authority to dismiss other theories as poppycock.-DAVID: My theory is not the cause of my poppycock response. it is my knowledge of cellular biochemistry. You are casting around for a middle ground taht does not exist.-So your God's preprogramming of every organ and every innovation you can think of is the only reasonable hypothesis. I wonder how many biochemists agree with you.-dhw: Then the cell is intelligent after all, so long as we call its intelligence "God" and not "intelligence".-DAVID: Twisting my thoughts again. The cells contain an intelligent information code, which I ropose is placed there by God. The cells are automatic, with the appearance of being conscious. Life is an emergent property of the cell complexity. REcall the discussion in my new book about the definition of life. A difficult subject unless emergence is invoked.-How can you tell the difference between something that appears to be conscious and something that is conscious? I don't have any problem with the concept of emergence. "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts." Put a billion mini-intelligences together and they may produce an ant colony, a kidney, and even consciousness. That is emergence: the interacting of individual parts to produce a greater whole. You may propose that God preprogrammed it all, someone else may propose that God gave cells (and humans) the ever evolving ability to invent things for themselves, someone else may propose that the ability evolved of its own accord, and someone else may propose that it all began with a huge stroke of luck. Proposals of this nature do not arise from knowledge of cellular biochemistry ... they are all speculative hypotheses to explain the inexplicable.