Cell Memories (Identity)

by David Turell , Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 23:23 (3557 days ago) @ dhw

Dhw: .... you are effectively saying that the genome provides the intelligence that makes the cell intelligent. I'll settle for that![/i]-
> DAVID: Thank you. Agreed. All that is left is to agree on the source of the intelligent information in the genome.
> 
> dhw: Hallelujah! Or are you playing games with me? Let me repeat: you are saying that the genome provides the intelligence that makes the cell intelligent, i.e. the cell is an intelligent being. It is not an automaton. In the context of evolution, now that you have clarified your views on preprogramming, i.e. that adaptations and innovations were not preprogrammed but cells were given the capacity to work out their own salvation (i.e. through their own form of intelligence), I hope you will also agree with Margulis and Shapiro that the key to evolutionary progress has been deliberate cooperation between intelligent, sentient beings. I think this is a huge step forward, as it dispenses with random mutations as a driving force, and instead provides a logical explanation for the prolific inventiveness that has led to the evolutionary bush. As for the source, of course you have every right to believe in a designer, given the immense complexity of the mechanisms that endow the cell with its intelligence and capacity to create almost unlimited life forms.-I've left your whole comment. There is no hallelujah. You are deliberately skipping over my concept of layered control. The genome contains information (intelligence) which allows the cells to make educated controlled responses to stimuli. The cells are given this intelligence and mechanisms to use it. The cells are organized to respond to each other and in unison. Imagine a record player playing a tune. The record player did not invntthe tune. It plays a record,and is programmed to play the next record when it should. And none of our discussion explains the giant leaps in the fossil record, the punctualted equilibium we see. Your theory fits tiny steps only, and my description of cell activity also does not explain the leaps. We are talking in circles about a tiny aspect of the problem. -What bothers me about your panpsychism approach is it offers no solution, nor does what I have describe to you. Therefore something is missing, and I come back to another yet-to-be-discovered code pushing evolution toward the obvious complexity of humans. We still don't know 'how cells...create almost unlimited life forms'.