Cell Memories (Identity)

by David Turell , Thursday, July 31, 2014, 02:11 (3767 days ago) @ dhw

dhw:So you ARE playing games with me! The expression “intelligent cell” refers to intelligence as the faculty that enables organisms to perceive, learn, process information, communicate with one another, take decisions etc.-No I am not. I use the words intelligence and information differently and you are twisiting my layered approach. Cells use intelligent information under fairly strict controls.
> 
> DAVID: The cells are given this intelligence and mechanisms to use it. The cells are organized to respond to each other and in unison.
> 
> dhw: The mechanisms to use information, as listed above (perceive, learn etc.), are what I mean by intelligence. You say they “are given" these mechanisms. By that, you clearly mean God gave them the mechanisms which I call intelligence. That means they have them. That means cells are intelligent. That means they are not automata. No more games, please.-If they are given a limited variety of responses to stimuli, of course they are automata. They are really quite comparable to robots, which also have limited decision-making capac idties.
> 
> dhw:As I keep pointing out, the concept of the intelligent cell DOES explain the giant leaps, and punctuated equilibrium, and it eliminates tiny steps, and it is anything but a tiny aspect of the problem. Environmental change would not only demand adaptation but it would also present new opportunities for experimentation. -You make cells sound like Thomas Edison. Cells can only make minor changes, even in cooperation as a whole organism. Reznick's guppies could change size in a two year period, when challenged by new predators. that is no a new species, but a minor adaptation. Your proposal does not answer the question of macroevolution, nor dos any mechanism I am aware of as stated below:
> 
> DAVID: 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'
> 
> dhw: No, we don't know how it works, but the possibility that the cell, as the basis of all life, has an inventive, cooperative, sentient intelligence of its own (perhaps designed by your God) seems to me to offer a far more convincing explanation of the evolutionary bush than random mutations or divine preplanning of every single variation, both of which theories you have rejected. I am still at a loss as to why you are so determined to rubbish the research done by Margulis, Shapiro and others.-Because you are stretching Margulis and Shapiro beyond all recognition. Yes, I reject RM & NS, but I also recognized no-one has an answer. Simon-Morris likes to point to convergence to show how inventive life is, but he doesn't know how it works either. All we know is somehow things evolved from one cell to us. There is a massive bush of unusual and usual life. Fabulous interlocking life styles and symbiosis: the enormous list of natures wonders I've compiled on our site. But no answer for punctuated equilibrium. You proposal cannot create the jumps we see. The cells' ability is too limited in the biochemistry of the genome and the cells themselves. To me you have conjured up a lovely self-explanatory pipedream.