Natures wonders: Cellular intelligence derailed? (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, December 18, 2013, 05:27 (3991 days ago) @ dhw

TONY: If the cells were autonomously intelligent, you would expect to see some form of dissent in the ranks, a dumb cell that couldn't follow directions, or just went its own way. They behaved exactly like I would expect a computer to behave, not like I would expect an intelligent creature to behave.
> 
> That's because although you acknowledge that there are different types and levels of intelligence, you seem to think only in terms of humans and computers. Why must intelligence presuppose the possibility of dissent? Even in a human context, the general gives the orders and the soldiers obey, but they must still use their intelligence to deal with contingencies. Maybe that's how all cells and cell communities function: through orders given and obeyed by different levels of intelligence, all of which (like the ant colony) follow the precept "Multicellular response is all for one". Only humans and to a lesser degree some of our fellow animals have the self-awareness that makes them question what is good for the community ... but that doesn't mean that other organisms don't need intelligence to work out what is good, or to implement the strategies.
> -It is not that I can only think in terms of computers or humans, but rather in terms of independent or not. A computer can not think independently. Humans(and other animals to a lesser extent) can. Given that the animal kingdom, at the level of complex organisms, displays the traits I was discussing (dissent, disobedience, independence, and idiocy), if we consider cells to have any form of intelligence even remotely close to that, then we should expect the same behavior. I would go as far as saying that all intelligent life(as we know it), regardless of the level of consciousness has these traits. -
> I hesitate to get drawn into a discussion on the nature of disease, but I'd have thought cancerous cells might represent the sort of "dissent" you're talking about. Would you argue that your God preprogrammed such "dissent"? After all, according to you and David, cells are automatons obeying his instructions.-Not really. When I look at the devolution of mankind, I think of cancer much the same way as I would think of a dry-rotting tire: it's a natural consequence of decay and long-term detrimental mutations being expressed. Would you say that the designers of your car screwed up your tires if you let the car sit in the driveway untouched for a year or two? I don't consider our neglect to be his fault or responsibility.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.