Species consciousness and instinct. (Introduction)

by David Turell , Wednesday, October 23, 2013, 01:41 (4050 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: Ants: you persist with your example of them finding the way, and refuse to consider the mantis example and the building of giant cities to house, shelter, rear and feed millions of inhabitants.-I still consider this instinct built over centuries of development by systems we do not yet understand and aided by species consciousness.-> dhw: You focus on the biochemical processes that accompany perception, memory and responses in ants, and assume there is no ability to put facts together, plan strategies, take decisions. You do the same with cells and cell communities. But this is assumption and not scientific fact. How does one distinguish between what seems to be intelligent and what is intelligent?-You are anthropomorphizing cells. Cells do not think. For the umpteenth time they work on information they have been given. To quote Shapiro: (paraphrased in his words): A paradigm shift in our thinking about biologic evolution [requires] " a shift from thinking about gradual selection of localized random changes to sudden genome restructuring by sensory-influenced cell systems." Notice that Shapiro is saying that the cells are systematically organized to respond to sensory stimuli. And further: [There are]" cognitive networks and cellular functions for self-modification [epigenetics]. The emphasis is systemic rather than atomistic and information-based rather than stochastic." Taken from his concluding paragraphs in his book. Note information based!!!Please read his book.
> 
> dhw: But these cases differ completely from species consciousness, since they focus on the ability of cell communities to take on and transfer individual characteristics and memories, and to influence other cell communities in the new body. Both concepts involve memory.-But memory involves consciousness.
> 
> dhw: I'm prepared at least provisionally to accept the veracity of these cases, just as I accept the veracity of certain NDE cases ... particularly when otherwise unknowable information is authenticated by third parties. I have no explanation for either kind of experience, but take both seriously enough to speculate on their implications. If individual characteristics and memories can be transferred from one cell community to another, this may suggest that cells in all creatures inherit more general memories that guide their instincts and some form of species consciousness. It may also suggest that cells and cell communities can cooperate to incorporate something new ... essential to the process of evolutionary innovation ... and can use memory to change one another.-I agree about NDE's and these transplant memories may have some validity if you consider species consciousness as a factor. Read sheldrake's works.
> 
> DAVID: Again, you pursue hunt and peck to create complicated organs. Pipedream.
> 
> dhw:There is no hunt and peck. Your own hypothesis entails your God preprogramming organisms to produce innovations through cellular cooperation in accordance with environmental conditions. There is no difference in the process itself. But mine has the cells deliberately cooperating (possibly with an intelligence provided by your God) instead of being preprogrammed to come up with the same combination. -Pre-programming as I view it leads to humans. Many lifestyles are developed epigenetically because life is built to be so inventive, a la Shapiro.-> dhw: You complain that my hypothesis is not borne out by biochemistry, and I have asked you to name any biochemist who supports your own. Your response is that "Larry Moran certainly won't refer to the divine." 90% of biochemists are against you, and I wonder how many of the remaining 10% favour the divine preprogramming of eukaryotes to produce all the innovations leading to humans.-Silly strawman argument. I haven't been to a medical convention where biochemistry is presented in years, I have every right to my own interpretations. 90% atheism is just human egotism, when these guys are so educated and accomplished they think they can out-think everything and solve everything without philosophy.
> 
> DAVID: Please remember that sentient means receiving signals and sensations and reacting to them.
> 
> dhw: Many definitions include the word "conscious" or "aware", which I take to mean aware of the signals and, above all, the sensations or feelings. Otherwise, they would not need to change. That does not mean they are self-aware, abstract-thinking philosophers. However, I do not think "sentient beings" can be automatons (which have no feelings). Similarly I think that Shapiro himself and Margulis and Albrecht-Buehler use words like conscious and intelligent to mean aware of feelings and perceptions, and able to assess information, take decisions, communicate, solve problems..... If random mutations seem increasingly unlikely, perhaps Margulis and Co have opened up a "third way".-See Shapiro above. The third way is epigenetics and the read/write digital system of DNA."'Natural genetic engineering'explains evolutionary processes that preceded people by 3,000 million years." Lynn Margulis, quoting one of Shapiro's favorite phrases, taken from the back cover of the book.