Natures wonders: Cellular intelligence derailed? (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, December 18, 2013, 19:41 (3991 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

dhw: Why don't Margulis, Shapiro, Albrecht-Buehler & Co tell us about God's plans, instead of insisting that cells are "intelligent" in their own right?DAVID: You are lining up atheists against me. they have their interpretation, I have mine. -You claim that science supports your hypothesis, and I'm lining up experts in the field who disagree with you. We're all entitled to our interpretations, but you have consistently dismissed the concept of the intelligent cell as being contrary to the findings of science, metaphorical, "poppycock", "kooky", an attempt to seek popularity. Let's have some respect here! 
 
Dhw: [...] when cells resist viruses and outside irritants, or adapt to new dangers, they have been preprogrammed by your God to do so. It's only when they fail to resist or adapt that the hypothesis of God's preprogramming sort of falls by the wayside. In other words, he preprogrammes whatever works, but whatever doesn't work is just...well...bad luck?
DAVID: Read David Raup's book on "Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad luck?", and he answers bad luck! -So when organisms succeed, they have been preprogrammed to do so, but when they fail, it's bad luck. So much for teleology.-dhw: Here's a different hypothesis: evolution is a history of constant improvisation and experimentation, as intelligent cells and cell communities respond in a vast variety of ways to ever changing challenges from the world in which they live...
DAVID: There is not time enough for your improvisation theory, and your theistic slant should read: God put intelligent information in the cells to allow them to adapt as conditions changed. Just a tiny variation of how cells act intelligently.-How do you know the amount of time required for a community of intelligent beings to devise a new machine? As for your revision of my theistic slant, why not stick to God put intelligence in the cells to allow them to adapt as conditions changed? Then you needn't flap around trying to explain God's purposeful preprogramming mingled with lots of bad luck, the first tiny cells being bunged up with billions of programmes, and God butting in every so often to make up for the gaps in his preprogramming. 
 
TONY: 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 can only ask again why you think dissent and idiocy are essential attributes of intelligence. It seems to me that perception, processing and communication of information, the ability to take decisions, to cooperate with other organisms, to devise new strategies etc. are far more important. When you say "independent" ... independent of what? Cells belong to communities, and for the smooth functioning of those communities (and hence of themselves), it is essential that they cooperate interdependently without "dissent". There still has to be a certain hierarchy within the community, with some sort of central control, but that applies to all organisms, including ourselves. You have acknowledged that there are different levels of intelligence, and that will apply throughout each cellular community. Perhaps part of cellular intelligence is the awareness that "multicellular response is all for one". We could learn a thing or two from that. You don't have to disobey an intelligent order to prove your own intelligence. -dhw: 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.
TONY: 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.-I'm not talking about responsibility or screwing up. I'm challenging the concept of God preprogramming the first living cells (or intervening) with every strategy that works, while we disregard those that don't. The scenario David categorically rejects is that your God may have invented an intelligent mechanism which went its own way ... creating a history of success and failure, full of surprise and variety (which I'd have thought would be much more entertaining for a creator anyway). It's still not clear to me why you object to this hypothesis.