AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

The word sentient has caused confusion in our discussions. Cells do sense things, usually by chemical signals but as shown here, it can also be a sense of force:--"The mechanism of sensing ligand spacing and adhering to a substrate appears to be force-mediated, he says. "The integrin receptors need to be closely spaced in order for the engine in the cell that generates force to engage with them and commit the force."
 
"Now the researchers are using the DNA-based tools they've developed to study the forces of more sensitive cellular pathways and receptors.
 
"Integrin receptors are kind of beasts, they apply relatively high forces in order to adhere to the extracellular matrix," Salaita says. "There are lots of different cell receptors that apply much weaker forces.""-
 Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-10-molecular-beacons-cells.html#jCp-Think they (the cells) can plan a strategy for a rugby or football play?

5302 views

They are very large complex proteins, and operate automatically:

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-long-held-concepts-cell-decoding.html

"Scientists at the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Intramural Research Program (IRP) have uncovered evidence that shows a more complex and elaborate role for the body's hard-working G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) than previously thought, suggesting a conceptual advance in the fields of biochemistry and pharmacology. With more than 800 members in the human genome, GPCRs are the largest family of proteins involved in decoding signals as they come into the cell and then adapt the cell's function in response.

***

"The NIDA scientists conclude that GPCRs form part of very elaborate pre-coupled macromolecular complexes. Simply put, they act as little computing devices that optimally gather and process information coming into the cell, allowing the cells to adapt and change their function. (my bold)

***

"'These findings represent many years of complex and highly nuanced science, following the trail as chemical signals travel through the body at the cellular level,'"

Comment: Note my bold. Cells don't think. They are sentient in that they receive sensory input and automatically compute responses. Please look at the protein molecule on the website as illustrated. Don't think a chance evolutionary process invented that molecule.

4598 views

QUOTE: The NIDA scientists conclude that GPCRs form part of very elaborate pre-coupled macromolecular complexes. Simply put, they act as little computing devices that optimally gather and process information coming into the cell, allowing the cells to adapt and change their function. (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID’s comment: Note my bold. Cells don't think. They are sentient in that they receive sensory input and automatically compute responses. Please look at the protein molecule on the website as illustrated. Don't think a chance evolutionary process invented that molecule.

As always, you focus on the chemical processes that precede and/or accompany decisions. That is the only thing scientists can observe. They cannot observe mental processes. If we observe a large organism (= a large community of cells) deliberately solving new problems, we say it is intelligent – i.e. it thinks. Humans are the prime example. We don’t say their molecules are gathering and processing information. If it is a micro-organism, some scientists say they think, and they say that those people who claim they don’t are indulging in “large organs chauvinism”.

I agree with your scepticism concerning a “chance” evolutionary process.

4611 views

QUOTE: The NIDA scientists conclude that GPCRs form part of very elaborate pre-coupled macromolecular complexes. Simply put, they act as little computing devices that optimally gather and process information coming into the cell, allowing the cells to adapt and change their function. (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID’s comment: Note my bold. Cells don't think. They are sentient in that they receive sensory input and automatically compute responses. Please look at the protein molecule on the website as illustrated. Don't think a chance evolutionary process invented that molecule.

dhw: As always, you focus on the chemical processes that precede and/or accompany decisions. That is the only thing scientists can observe. They cannot observe mental processes. If we observe a large organism (= a large community of cells) deliberately solving new problems, we say it is intelligent – i.e. it thinks. Humans are the prime example. We don’t say their molecules are gathering and processing information. If it is a micro-organism, some scientists say they think, and they say that those people who claim they don’t are indulging in “large organs chauvinism”.

I agree with your scepticism concerning a “chance” evolutionary process.

Thank you for your skepticism. As for thinking humans, most of what happens every day in their bodies is entirely automatic.

4589 views

DAVID’s comment: Note my bold. Cells don't think. They are sentient in that they receive sensory input and automatically compute responses. Please look at the protein molecule on the website as illustrated. Don't think a chance evolutionary process invented that molecule.

dhw: As always, you focus on the chemical processes that precede and/or accompany decisions. That is the only thing scientists can observe. They cannot observe mental processes. If we observe a large organism (= a large community of cells) deliberately solving new problems, we say it is intelligent – i.e. it thinks. Humans are the prime example. We don’t say their molecules are gathering and processing information. If it is a micro-organism, some scientists say they think, and they say that those people who claim they don’t are indulging in “large organs chauvinism”.
I agree with your scepticism concerning a “chance” evolutionary process.

DAVID: Thank you for your skepticism. As for thinking humans, most of what happens every day in their bodies is entirely automatic.

Again I agree. What is not automatic is the power to solve problems, make decisions, cooperate with others – those activities which indicate autonomous intelligence and are to be observed in all our fellow organisms, including bacteria.

4597 views

DAVID: Thank you for your skepticism. As for thinking humans, most of what happens every day in their bodies is entirely automatic.

dhw: Again I agree. What is not automatic is the power to solve problems, make decisions, cooperate with others – those activities which indicate autonomous intelligence and are to be observed in all our fellow organisms, including bacteria.

Again: they are automatically programmed by intelligent information which makes them look intelligent.

4615 views

DAVID: Thank you for your skepticism. As for thinking humans, most of what happens every day in their bodies is entirely automatic.

dhw: Again I agree. What is not automatic is the power to solve problems, make decisions, cooperate with others – those activities which indicate autonomous intelligence and are to be observed in all our fellow organisms, including bacteria.

DAVID: Again: they are automatically programmed by intelligent information which makes them look intelligent.

Our fellow organisms also include insects, birds, fish, other animals and our fellow human beings. So I wonder how you manage to distinguish between those that merely look intelligent and those that actually are intelligent. Do please tell us your secret.

4599 views

DAVID: Thank you for your skepticism. As for thinking humans, most of what happens every day in their bodies is entirely automatic.

dhw: Again I agree. What is not automatic is the power to solve problems, make decisions, cooperate with others – those activities which indicate autonomous intelligence and are to be observed in all our fellow organisms, including bacteria.

DAVID: Again: they are automatically programmed by intelligent information which makes them look intelligent.

dhw: Our fellow organisms also include insects, birds, fish, other animals and our fellow human beings. So I wonder how you manage to distinguish between those that merely look intelligent and those that actually are intelligent. Do please tell us your secret.

It is analyzing instinctual behavior vs. inventive behavior. Humans are inventive.

4583 views

DAVID: Thank you for your skepticism. As for thinking humans, most of what happens every day in their bodies is entirely automatic.

dhw: Again I agree. What is not automatic is the power to solve problems, make decisions, cooperate with others – those activities which indicate autonomous intelligence and are to be observed in all our fellow organisms, including bacteria.

DAVID: Again: they are automatically programmed by intelligent information which makes them look intelligent.

dhw: Our fellow organisms also include insects, birds, fish, other animals and our fellow human beings. So I wonder how you manage to distinguish between those that merely look intelligent and those that actually are intelligent. Do please tell us your secret.

DAVID: It is analyzing instinctual behavior vs. inventive behavior. Humans are inventive.

How can you tell the difference between the instinctive and the inventive solution of problems? Every single natural wonder that you have described must have had a first, and that first would have to be called inventive. So how do you know that the very first weaverbird’s nest, beaver dam, monarch migration, chameleon camouflage, ant raft, termite city were NOT the result of inventive behaviour?

4598 views

dhw: Our fellow organisms also include insects, birds, fish, other animals and our fellow human beings. So I wonder how you manage to distinguish between those that merely look intelligent and those that actually are intelligent. Do please tell us your secret.

DAVID: It is analyzing instinctual behavior vs. inventive behavior. Humans are inventive.

dhw: How can you tell the difference between the instinctive and the inventive solution of problems? Every single natural wonder that you have described must have had a first, and that first would have to be called inventive. So how do you know that the very first weaverbird’s nest, beaver dam, monarch migration, chameleon camouflage, ant raft, termite city were NOT the result of inventive behaviour?

You have brought the discussion back to where God might have dabbled. The inventive behavior may be God's.

4597 views

dhw: Our fellow organisms also include insects, birds, fish, other animals and our fellow human beings. So I wonder how you manage to distinguish between those that merely look intelligent and those that actually are intelligent. Do please tell us your secret.

DAVID: It is analyzing instinctual behavior vs. inventive behavior. Humans are inventive.

dhw: How can you tell the difference between the instinctive and the inventive solution of problems? Every single natural wonder that you have described must have had a first, and that first would have to be called inventive. So how do you know that the very first weaverbird’s nest, beaver dam, monarch migration, chameleon camouflage, ant raft, termite city were NOT the result of inventive behaviour?

DAVID: You have brought the discussion back to where God might have dabbled. The inventive behavior may be God's.

Yes of course, your God – apparently in order to fulfil his prime purpose of producing the sapiens brain – might have given private lessons to weaverbirds, beavers, chameleons, ants, termites and every other naturally wonderful organism. And even now he might personally be teaching bacteria to solve new problems as and when they arise. And indeed he might even be personally pulling the David Turell and dhw strings, as we kid ourselves that we are autonomous thinkers and doers. On the other hand, our behaviour and their behaviour “may be” the result of your God giving us and them the means to do our/their own thinking and doing. So do please tell us the secret method you have discovered for distinguishing between automatic behaviour and autonomous behaviour.

4593 views

DAVID: You have brought the discussion back to where God might have dabbled. The inventive behavior may be God's.

dhw: Yes of course, your God – apparently in order to fulfil his prime purpose of producing the sapiens brain – might have given private lessons to weaverbirds, beavers, chameleons, ants, termites and every other naturally wonderful organism. And even now he might personally be teaching bacteria to solve new problems as and when they arise. And indeed he might even be personally pulling the David Turell and dhw strings, as we kid ourselves that we are autonomous thinkers and doers. On the other hand, our behaviour and their behaviour “may be” the result of your God giving us and them the means to do our/their own thinking and doing. So do please tell us the secret method you have discovered for distinguishing between automatic behaviour and autonomous behaviour.

Because all cellular reactions to stimuli are shown by scientific research to be a series of molecular reactions. Molecules reacting to molecules don't mentate.

4605 views

DAVID: You have brought the discussion back to where God might have dabbled. The inventive behavior may be God's.

dhw: Yes of course, your God – apparently in order to fulfil his prime purpose of producing the sapiens brain – might have given private lessons to weaverbirds, beavers, chameleons, ants, termites and every other naturally wonderful organism. And even now he might personally be teaching bacteria to solve new problems as and when they arise. And indeed he might even be personally pulling the David Turell and dhw strings, as we kid ourselves that we are autonomous thinkers and doers. On the other hand, our behaviour and their behaviour “may be” the result of your God giving us and them the means to do our/their own thinking and doing. So do please tell us the secret method you have discovered for distinguishing between automatic behaviour and autonomous behaviour.

DAVID: Because all cellular reactions to stimuli are shown by scientific research to be a series of molecular reactions. Molecules reacting to molecules don't mentate.

As a dualist you believe that certain cellular reactions in humans are caused by the activities of an immaterial self which gives instructions to the material self. (Lots of reactions are automatic, but we judge intelligence by those that are not.) Science has never shown that there is an immaterial self giving instructions to molecules. However, what scientific research has shown is that even micro-organisms can solve problems, communicate, cooperate, take decisions. And all these are characteristics of intelligence (though of course on nothing like the scale of human intelligence and self-awareness). You say there is no way we can tell the difference between automaticity and autonomy, so once again, how can you know that cells/cell communities do not mentate? And please don’t change cells to molecules. That is like saying your little fingernail doesn’t mentate.

DAVID (under “cellular intelligence”): This study shows the shape of the organic molecule carries information in its shape by a chemist who creates decoy shapes.
DAVID’s comment: It requires the exact shapes of each type of molecule to transmit meaningful actions. How can one doubt God's creation when this is understood? We are learning God's tricks, Look at the website to see the illustration of the decoy and what it copies.

I’m sorry you put this under the heading of “cellular intelligence”. Just to clarify: as above, I am not questioning the obvious fact that molecules contain information and their actions are automatic. Your comment, which concerns the complexity of design, is fair enough, but I’d just like to point out that neither it nor the article can be used to negate the possibility of cellular intelligence.

4598 views

DAVID: Because all cellular reactions to stimuli are shown by scientific research to be a series of molecular reactions. Molecules reacting to molecules don't mentate.

dhw: As a dualist you believe that certain cellular reactions in humans are caused by the activities of an immaterial self which gives instructions to the material self. (Lots of reactions are automatic, but we judge intelligence by those that are not.) Science has never shown that there is an immaterial self giving instructions to molecules. However, what scientific research has shown is that even micro-organisms can solve problems, communicate, cooperate, take decisions. And all these are characteristics of intelligence (though of course on nothing like the scale of human intelligence and self-awareness). You say there is no way we can tell the difference between automaticity and autonomy, so once again, how can you know that cells/cell communities do not mentate? And please don’t change cells to molecules. That is like saying your little fingernail doesn’t mentate.

What are single cells but millions of molecules designed to cooperate?

DAVID (under “cellular intelligence”): This study shows the shape of the organic molecule carries information in its shape by a chemist who creates decoy shapes.
DAVID’s comment: It requires the exact shapes of each type of molecule to transmit meaningful actions. How can one doubt God's creation when this is understood? We are learning God's tricks, Look at the website to see the illustration of the decoy and what it copies.
dhw: I’m sorry you put this under the heading of “cellular intelligence”. Just to clarify: as above, I am not questioning the obvious fact that molecules contain information and their actions are automatic. Your comment, which concerns the complexity of design, is fair enough, but I’d just like to point out that neither it nor the article can be used to negate the possibility of cellular intelligence.

I know you are sorry, but this new research shows how the implanted information is transmitted by molecular 3-D shape. Ask yourself how does shape transmit information. I say by design, and that is the cellular intelligence.

4610 views

DAVID: Because all cellular reactions to stimuli are shown by scientific research to be a series of molecular reactions. Molecules reacting to molecules don't mentate.

dhw: As a dualist you believe that certain cellular reactions in humans are caused by the activities of an immaterial self which gives instructions to the material self. (Lots of reactions are automatic, but we judge intelligence by those that are not.) Science has never shown that there is an immaterial self giving instructions to molecules. However, what scientific research has shown is that even micro-organisms can solve problems, communicate, cooperate, take decisions. And all these are characteristics of intelligence (though of course on nothing like the scale of human intelligence and self-awareness). You say there is no way we can tell the difference between automaticity and autonomy, so once again, how can you know that cells/cell communities do not mentate? And please don’t change cells to molecules. That is like saying your little fingernail doesn’t mentate.

DAVID: What are single cells but millions of molecules designed to cooperate?

You quote my whole paragraph, and then respond only to the very end! If I say David is intelligent, that does not mean all his molecules are intelligent. We do not know the source of intelligence. Some people think that in humans it’s a soul; others think it’s the pre-frontal cortex. Bacteria (single cells) and cell communities (multicellular organs and organisms) may have the equivalent of either. Now perhaps you will tell us how you can distinguish between automatic and autonomous behaviour, bearing in mind the points made in the paragraph you have quoted.
xxxxx
dhw: I’m sorry you put this under the heading of “cellular intelligence”. Just to clarify:[ …]I am not questioning the obvious fact that molecules contain information and their actions are automatic. Your comment, which concerns the complexity of design, is fair enough, but I’d just like to point out that neither it nor the article can be used to negate the possibility of cellular intelligence.

DAVID: I know you are sorry, but this new research shows how the implanted information is transmitted by molecular 3-D shape. Ask yourself how does shape transmit information. I say by design, and that is the cellular intelligence.

I have explicitly said that your comment re design is “fair enough”, and I have never argued against “cellular intelligence” being the product of design. My point is that transference of information by molecular shape does not in any way negate the possibility of cellular intelligence.

4570 views

dhw: As a dualist you believe that certain cellular reactions in humans are caused by the activities of an immaterial self which gives instructions to the material self. (Lots of reactions are automatic, but we judge intelligence by those that are not.) Science has never shown that there is an immaterial self giving instructions to molecules. However, what scientific research has shown is that even micro-organisms can solve problems, communicate, cooperate, take decisions. And all these are characteristics of intelligence (though of course on nothing like the scale of human intelligence and self-awareness). You say there is no way we can tell the difference between automaticity and autonomy, so once again, how can you know that cells/cell communities do not mentate? And please don’t change cells to molecules. That is like saying your little fingernail doesn’t mentate.

DAVID: What are single cells but millions of molecules designed to cooperate?

dhw: You quote my whole paragraph, and then respond only to the very end! If I say David is intelligent, that does not mean all his molecules are intelligent. We do not know the source of intelligence. Some people think that in humans it’s a soul; others think it’s the pre-frontal cortex. Bacteria (single cells) and cell communities (multicellular organs and organisms) may have the equivalent of either. Now perhaps you will tell us how you can distinguish between automatic and autonomous behaviour, bearing in mind the points made in the paragraph you have quoted.

I'm sorry you are disappointed with my answer to your specific question at the end of the paragraph. I've clearly pointed out my thinking in the presentation of the discovery that the 3-D shape of organic molecules carry the information for reactions to create purposeful results.

xxxxx

dhw: I’m sorry you put this under the heading of “cellular intelligence”. Just to clarify:[ …]I am not questioning the obvious fact that molecules contain information and their actions are automatic. Your comment, which concerns the complexity of design, is fair enough, but I’d just like to point out that neither it nor the article can be used to negate the possibility of cellular intelligence.

DAVID: I know you are sorry, but this new research shows how the implanted information is transmitted by molecular 3-D shape. Ask yourself how does shape transmit information. I say by design, and that is the cellular intelligence.

dhw: I have explicitly said that your comment re design is “fair enough”, and I have never argued against “cellular intelligence” being the product of design. My point is that transference of information by molecular shape does not in any way negate the possibility of cellular intelligence.

The only real intelligence we know involves the presence of neurons and brains. Purposeful actions can be coded, as demonstrated.

4605 views

dhw: You quote my whole paragraph, and then respond only to the very end! If I say David is intelligent, that does not mean all his molecules are intelligent. We do not know the source of intelligence. Some people think that in humans it’s a soul; others think it’s the pre-frontal cortex. Bacteria (single cells) and cell communities (multicellular organs and organisms) may have the equivalent of either. Now perhaps you will tell us how you can distinguish between automatic and autonomous behaviour, bearing in mind the points made in the paragraph you have quoted.

DAVID: I'm sorry you are disappointed with my answer to your specific question at the end of the paragraph. I've clearly pointed out my thinking in the presentation of the discovery that the 3-D shape of organic molecules carry the information for reactions to create purposeful results.

And so apparently you know that because the 3-D shape of organic molecules carries the information for reactions to create purposeful results, human behaviour is the result of intelligence and bacterial behaviour is the result of divine preprogramming. I don’t follow your logic.

DAVID (under “Cambrian explosion”): And just where is the intelligence hiding in the automatic cellular responses? I've shown you information codes are hidden in the 3-D shape of organic molecules.

dhw: Where is the intelligence hiding when you solve problems? Has science revealed the presence of your dualist’s thinking soul?

DAVID: No, science can't find the soul, but it can show the degrees of intelligence the complexity of the brain allows.

According to you as a dualist, intelligence is the province of the soul not the brain, which implements the thoughts of the soul. Science can certainly observe the results of intelligence, as it does when it sets problems for non-human organisms to solve. But you don’t believe that behaviour can show intelligence, as is clear from your next comment:

DAVID: The only real intelligence we know involves the presence of neurons and brains. Purposeful actions can be coded, as demonstrated.

Purposeful actions can be the result of intelligence. How do you know they are not? If the defining feature of “real intelligence” (whatever that means) is the presence of neurons and brains, then of course a neuron-less, brainless creature can’t be intelligent. If an atheist’s definition of God is “a mythical being that doesn’t exist”, then of course God can’t exist. Not the best of arguments, is it? I would suggest that if any organism shows that it is capable of processing information, communicating that information to others and cooperating with them, solving problems and taking decisions, it has the characteristics of what we normally associate with intelligence (not to be equated with the degree of awareness and self-awareness that characterizes human intelligence). Please tell me what other qualities are essential to your personal definition of intelligence.

4578 views

DAVID: I'm sorry you are disappointed with my answer to your specific question at the end of the paragraph. I've clearly pointed out my thinking in the presentation of the discovery that the 3-D shape of organic molecules carry the information for reactions to create purposeful results.

dhw: And so apparently you know that because the 3-D shape of organic molecules carries the information for reactions to create purposeful results, human behaviour is the result of intelligence and bacterial behaviour is the result of divine preprogramming. I don’t follow your logic.

Your answer is not to my point. I find it amazing that we can see how God has used 3-D shape to insert information into the conduct of the molecules of life. But it shows us how bacterial behavior can be totally controlled by the informakion transmitted by their molecules and genome.

DAVID: No, science can't find the soul, but it can show the degrees of intelligence the complexity of the brain allows.

dhw: According to you as a dualist, intelligence is the province of the soul not the brain, which implements the thoughts of the soul.

No, IQ shows us the level of intelligence differs in different brains, based on the quality of complexity the brain offers. The s/s/c can only be as brilliant as the material brain allows.

dhw: Science can certainly observe the results of intelligence, as it does when it sets problems for non-human organisms to solve. But you don’t believe that behaviour can show intelligence, as is clear from your next comment:

DAVID: The only real intelligence we know involves the presence of neurons and brains. Purposeful actions can be coded, as demonstrated.

dhw: Purposeful actions can be the result of intelligence. How do you know they are not? If the defining feature of “real intelligence” (whatever that means) is the presence of neurons and brains, then of course a neuron-less, brainless creature can’t be intelligent. If an atheist’s definition of God is “a mythical being that doesn’t exist”, then of course God can’t exist. Not the best of arguments, is it? I would suggest that if any organism shows that it is capable of processing information, communicating that information to others and cooperating with them, solving problems and taking decisions, it has the characteristics of what we normally associate with intelligence (not to be equated with the degree of awareness and self-awareness that characterizes human intelligence). Please tell me what other qualities are essential to your personal definition of intelligence.

I agree with you. The organism acting intelligently looks intelligent, but can appear that way by running on intelligent implanted information, a point you cannot deny.

4620 views

dhw: And so apparently you know that because the 3-D shape of organic molecules carries the information for reactions to create purposeful results, human behaviour is the result of intelligence and bacterial behaviour is the result of divine preprogramming. I don’t follow your logic.

DAVID: Your answer is not to my point. I find it amazing that we can see how God has used 3-D shape to insert information into the conduct of the molecules of life. But it shows us how bacterial behavior can be totally controlled by the informakion transmitted by their molecules and genome.

No it doesn’t. It shows us how behaviour of all organisms is conducted through information conveyed by molecules. It doesn’t show us how organisms take the decisions that lead to the behaviour. This applies as much to humans as to bacteria.

DAVID: No, science can't find the soul, but it can show the degrees of intelligence the complexity of the brain allows.

dhw: According to you as a dualist, intelligence is the province of the soul not the brain, which implements the thoughts of the soul.

DAVID: No, IQ shows us the level of intelligence differs in different brains, based on the quality of complexity the brain offers. The s/s/c can only be as brilliant as the material brain allows.

IQ shows us the level of intelligence in different people. Dualists believe that the s/s/c is the source of intelligence, which survives the death of the brain (NDEs are used as evidence of an afterlife in which the intelligent you are still the intelligent you), whereas materialists believe that the brain is its source. As usual, you are a dualist advocating materialism.

dhw: Science can certainly observe the results of intelligence, as it does when it sets problems for non-human organisms to solve. But you don’t believe that behaviour can show intelligence, as is clear from your next comment:
DAVID: The only real intelligence we know involves the presence of neurons and brains. Purposeful actions can be coded, as demonstrated.

dhw: Purposeful actions can be the result of intelligence. How do you know they are not? If the defining feature of “real intelligence” (whatever that means) is the presence of neurons and brains, then of course a neuron-less, brainless creature can’t be intelligent. If an atheist’s definition of God is “a mythical being that doesn’t exist”, then of course God can’t exist. Not the best of arguments, is it? I would suggest that if any organism shows that it is capable of processing information, communicating that information to others and cooperating with them, solving problems and taking decisions, it has the characteristics of what we normally associate with intelligence (not to be equated with the degree of awareness and self-awareness that characterizes human intelligence). Please tell me what other qualities are essential to your personal definition of intelligence.

DAVID: I agree with you. The organism acting intelligently looks intelligent, but can appear that way by running on intelligent implanted information, a point you cannot deny.

Yes, we could all be robots. But since you agree with me, and presumably accept the criteria I propose for gauging intelligence, you cannot deny the possibility that bacteria are intelligent.

4579 views

DAVID: Your answer is not to my point. I find it amazing that we can see how God has used 3-D shape to insert information into the conduct of the molecules of life. But it shows us how bacterial behavior can be totally controlled by the informakion transmitted by their molecules and genome.

dhw: No it doesn’t. It shows us how behaviour of all organisms is conducted through information conveyed by molecules. It doesn’t show us how organisms take the decisions that lead to the behaviour. This applies as much to humans as to bacteria.

If all the decisions are planned using automatic molecular actions, all the decisions are automatic at the cellular level. You expanded your answer beyond that. A kidney cell only does what a kidney cell knows to do, balance the liquids and salts in the body.

DAVID: No, IQ shows us the level of intelligence differs in different brains, based on the quality of complexity the brain offers. The s/s/c can only be as brilliant as the material brain allows.

dhw: IQ shows us the level of intelligence in different people. Dualists believe that the s/s/c is the source of intelligence, which survives the death of the brain (NDEs are used as evidence of an afterlife in which the intelligent you are still the intelligent you), whereas materialists believe that the brain is its source. As usual, you are a dualist advocating materialism.

No I'm not. You have not answered the IQ point. In life the s/s/c must use the brain it is given, and brains are built for different capacities of intelligent thought. NDE's exist in a different circumstance, non-function or death. s/s/c may operate differently then.

DAVID: I agree with you. The organism acting intelligently looks intelligent, but can appear that way by running on intelligent implanted information, a point you cannot deny.

dhw: Yes, we could all be robots. But since you agree with me, and presumably accept the criteria I propose for gauging intelligence, you cannot deny the possibility that bacteria are intelligent.

In my view bacteria are robots.

4584 views

DAVID: I find it amazing that we can see how God has used 3-D shape to insert information into the conduct of the molecules of life. But it shows us how bacterial behavior can be totally controlled by the informakion transmitted by their molecules and genome.
dhw: No it doesn’t. It shows us how behaviour of all organisms is conducted through information conveyed by molecules. It doesn’t show us how organisms take the decisions that lead to the behaviour. This applies as much to humans as to bacteria.
DAVID: If all the decisions are planned using automatic molecular actions, all the decisions are automatic at the cellular level. […] A kidney cell only does what a kidney cell knows to do, balance the liquids and salts in the body.

Of course if all decisions are preprogrammed, every decision is automatic. And if they’re not preprogrammed, then they are not automatic! A kidney cell is part of a huge community of cells, linked to other huge communities. I am not saying every individual cell is intelligent. I am suggesting that unicellular organisms and cell communities are intelligent. Once something has been invented, it may well function automatically. Intelligence is only required for the invention itself, for modifications, and for the solution of new problems. That is how we can test the intelligence of organisms we can’t communicate with.
(Your comments on IQs and NDEs are dealt with on the "big brain" thread)

DAVID: The organism acting intelligently looks intelligent, but can appear that way by running on intelligent implanted information, a point you cannot deny.
dhw: Yes, we could all be robots. But since you agree with me, and presumably accept the criteria I propose for gauging intelligence, you cannot deny the possibility that bacteria are intelligent.
DAVID: In my view bacteria are robots.

I am aware of your view. In some people’s view, you may be a robot. I don’t think you are, but how can I know you're not?

DAVID (under “bacterial memory”): Newly discovered in bacterial biofilms:
https://phys.org/news/2018-04-bacteria-memory-descendants.html

QUOTE: "Led by scientists at UCLA, an international team of researchers has discovered that bacteria have a "memory" that passes sensory knowledge from one generation of cells to the next, all without a central nervous system or any neurons.”
"'Bacteria sense and remember via this rhythmic pattern, which is pivotal for their decision to suppress motility, become stationary and ultimately attach to a surface irreversibly and form a biofilm," Wong said."

DAVID’s comment: the way this works is not known as yet, but my guess is newly developed epigenetic changes in the genome change the information available, so the bacteria know how to repeat the past. It is just as logical adaptation. We see builtin bacterial adaptation all the time, which is why they never disappear.

Bacteria have memories, take decisions, communicate, cooperate. Let’s just be clear about your insistence on their automaticity. It means that every single bacterial adaptation throughout the history of life was either preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or is the result of your God dabbling. The theistic alternative is that he gave them the means to make their own decisions. Which of these alternatives sounds more likely?

4576 views

DAVID: If all the decisions are planned using automatic molecular actions, all the decisions are automatic at the cellular level. […] A kidney cell only does what a kidney cell knows to do, balance the liquids and salts in the body.

dhw: Of course if all decisions are preprogrammed, every decision is automatic. And if they’re not preprogrammed, then they are not automatic! A kidney cell is part of a huge community of cells, linked to other huge communities. I am not saying every individual cell is intelligent. I am suggesting that unicellular organisms and cell communities are intelligent. Once something has been invented, it may well function automatically. Intelligence is only required for the invention itself, for modifications, and for the solution of new problems. That is how we can test the intelligence of organisms we can’t communicate with.

Are you saying bacteria were invented? I can't believe it.

DAVID (under “bacterial memory”): Newly discovered in bacterial biofilms:
https://phys.org/news/2018-04-bacteria-memory-descendants.html

QUOTE: "Led by scientists at UCLA, an international team of researchers has discovered that bacteria have a "memory" that passes sensory knowledge from one generation of cells to the next, all without a central nervous system or any neurons.”
"'Bacteria sense and remember via this rhythmic pattern, which is pivotal for their decision to suppress motility, become stationary and ultimately attach to a surface irreversibly and form a biofilm," Wong said."

DAVID’s comment: the way this works is not known as yet, but my guess is newly developed epigenetic changes in the genome change the information available, so the bacteria know how to repeat the past. It is just as logical adaptation. We see builtin bacterial adaptation all the time, which is why they never disappear.

dhw: Bacteria have memories, take decisions, communicate, cooperate. Let’s just be clear about your insistence on their automaticity. It means that every single bacterial adaptation throughout the history of life was either preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or is the result of your God dabbling. The theistic alternative is that he gave them the means to make their own decisions. Which of these alternatives sounds more likely?

Decision making at our level requires thoughtful analysis of complex issues. At the bacterial level they experience very few stimuli: sensing food, sensing danger, sensing a need to move. Not much else. All can be handled by automatic responses.

4581 views

DAVID: If all the decisions are planned using automatic molecular actions, all the decisions are automatic at the cellular level. […] A kidney cell only does what a kidney cell knows to do, balance the liquids and salts in the body.
dhw: Of course if all decisions are preprogrammed, every decision is automatic. And if they’re not preprogrammed, then they are not automatic! A kidney cell is part of a huge community of cells, linked to other huge communities. I am not saying every individual cell is intelligent. I am suggesting that unicellular organisms and cell communities are intelligent. Once something has been invented, it may well function automatically. Intelligence is only required for the invention itself, for modifications, and for the solution of new problems. That is how we can test the intelligence of organisms we can’t communicate with.

DAVID: Are you saying bacteria were invented? I can't believe it.

I have no idea how the first living cells came into being, but one possibility is that your God invented them. My argument above is a response to your claim that bacteria and cell communities are automatons. It would have been interesting for me to learn how else you think we can judge whether organisms are intelligent or not.

dhw: Bacteria have memories, take decisions, communicate, cooperate. Let’s just be clear about your insistence on their automaticity. It means that every single bacterial adaptation throughout the history of life was either preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or is the result of your God dabbling. The theistic alternative is that he gave them the means to make their own decisions. Which of these alternatives sounds more likely?
DAVID: Decision making at our level requires thoughtful analysis of complex issues. At the bacterial level they experience very few stimuli: sensing food, sensing danger, sensing a need to move. Not much else. All can be handled by automatic responses.

I am not comparing the bacterial level of decision-making and intelligence to that of humans! I have listed attributes that we normally associate with intelligence. You have failed to come up with any other criteria, and are left with nothing but your belief that these “can be” automatic, which means you yourself “can be” a robot. Maybe you are not. And maybe they are not. Meanwhile, we are left with the fact that you consider it more likely that your God has preprogrammed or personally dabbled every single bacterial adaptation in the history of life than that he gave them the means to make their own decisions.

4602 views

DAVID: Are you saying bacteria were invented? I can't believe it.

dhw: I have no idea how the first living cells came into being, but one possibility is that your God invented them. My argument above is a response to your claim that bacteria and cell communities are automatons. It would have been interesting for me to learn how else you think we can judge whether organisms are intelligent or not.

If research can show a series of molecular reactions that respond to a specific stimulus and those reactions lead to a response result that is automatic, and research does this over and over, then. I've presented many examples of this. Intelligent action/ design does not mean intelligence is present, but intelligent information is at work implanted into the actions of complex organic molecules, expressed in part (coded) by their 3-D shapes.

dhw: Bacteria have memories, take decisions, communicate, cooperate. Let’s just be clear about your insistence on their automaticity. It means that every single bacterial adaptation throughout the history of life was either preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or is the result of your God dabbling. The theistic alternative is that he gave them the means to make their own decisions. Which of these alternatives sounds more likely?
DAVID: Decision making at our level requires thoughtful analysis of complex issues. At the bacterial level they experience very few stimuli: sensing food, sensing danger, sensing a need to move. Not much else. All can be handled by automatic responses.

dhw: I am not comparing the bacterial level of decision-making and intelligence to that of humans! I have listed attributes that we normally associate with intelligence. You have failed to come up with any other criteria, and are left with nothing but your belief that these “can be” automatic, which means you yourself “can be” a robot. Maybe you are not. And maybe they are not. Meanwhile, we are left with the fact that you consider it more likely that your God has preprogrammed or personally dabbled every single bacterial adaptation in the history of life than that he gave them the means to make their own decisions.

God did give bacteria that ability, but as in my comment above it is all automatic.

4592 views

DAVID: Are you saying bacteria were invented? I can't believe it.

dhw: I have no idea how the first living cells came into being, but one possibility is that your God invented them. My argument above is a response to your claim that bacteria and cell communities are automatons. It would have been interesting for me to learn how else you think we can judge whether organisms are intelligent or not.

DAVID: If research can show a series of molecular reactions that respond to a specific stimulus and those reactions lead to a response result that is automatic, and research does this over and over, then. I've presented many examples of this. Intelligent action/ design does not mean intelligence is present, but intelligent information is at work implanted into the actions of complex organic molecules, expressed in part (coded) by their 3-D shapes.

There is no question that many reactions are automatic, in ourselves as well as in bacteria. However, invention, modification, cooperation, problem-solving, decision-making are all actions that research cannot restrict to automaticity. Research can only study their physical manifestations. And you have agreed that there is no way one can tell the difference between automaticity and autonomous intelligence.

dhw: I am not comparing the bacterial level of decision-making and intelligence to that of humans! I have listed attributes that we normally associate with intelligence. You have failed to come up with any other criteria, and are left with nothing but your belief that these “can be” automatic, which means you yourself “can be” a robot. Maybe you are not. And maybe they are not. Meanwhile, we are left with the fact that you consider it more likely that your God has preprogrammed or personally dabbled every single bacterial adaptation in the history of life than that he gave them the means to make their own decisions.

DAVID: God did give bacteria that ability, but as in my comment above it is all automatic.

As in my two comments above, you ignore all the attributes of intelligence, and insist that every bacterial adaptation – both nice and nasty – in the history of life has been preprogrammed or personally dabbled by your God, whose one and only purpose, let us remember, was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. And you think this is logical.

4609 views

DAVID: Are you saying bacteria were invented? I can't believe it.

dhw: I have no idea how the first living cells came into being, but one possibility is that your God invented them. My argument above is a response to your claim that bacteria and cell communities are automatons. It would have been interesting for me to learn how else you think we can judge whether organisms are intelligent or not.

DAVID: If research can show a series of molecular reactions that respond to a specific stimulus and those reactions lead to a response result that is automatic, and research does this over and over, then. I've presented many examples of this. Intelligent action/ design does not mean intelligence is present, but intelligent information is at work implanted into the actions of complex organic molecules, expressed in part (coded) by their 3-D shapes.

dhw: There is no question that many reactions are automatic, in ourselves as well as in bacteria. However, invention, modification, cooperation, problem-solving, decision-making are all actions that research cannot restrict to automaticity. Research can only study their physical manifestations. And you have agreed that there is no way one can tell the difference between automaticity and autonomous intelligence.

If a particular stimulus to a bacterium results in a series of molecular reactions leading to a molecular response, as research shows, it must be inferred that it is automatic. I'll stick to that interpretation as a strong inference.

dhw: I am not comparing the bacterial level of decision-making and intelligence to that of humans! I have listed attributes that we normally associate with intelligence. You have failed to come up with any other criteria, and are left with nothing but your belief that these “can be” automatic, which means you yourself “can be” a robot. Maybe you are not. And maybe they are not. Meanwhile, we are left with the fact that you consider it more likely that your God has preprogrammed or personally dabbled every single bacterial adaptation in the history of life than that he gave them the means to make their own decisions.

DAVID: God did give bacteria that ability, but as in my comment above it is all automatic.

dhw: As in my two comments above, you ignore all the attributes of intelligence, and insist that every bacterial adaptation – both nice and nasty – in the history of life has been preprogrammed or personally dabbled by your God, whose one and only purpose, let us remember, was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. And you think this is logical.

Inventing bacteria is only the beginning of evolution of the brain. Evolution had to proceed from that point to now. The brain is the most complex unexpected outcome one could imagine.

4587 views

dhw: There is no question that many reactions are automatic, in ourselves as well as in bacteria. However, invention, modification, cooperation, problem-solving, decision-making are all actions that research cannot restrict to automaticity. Research can only study their physical manifestations. And you have agreed that there is no way one can tell the difference between automaticity and autonomous intelligence.
DAVID: If a particular stimulus to a bacterium results in a series of molecular reactions leading to a molecular response, as research shows, it must be inferred that it is automatic. I'll stick to that interpretation as a strong inference.

Of course you will. And you will ignore any research which suggests that bacteria are capable of autonomous self-modification, cooperation, problem-solving, decision-making and any other attribute that we associate with intelligence, even though you admit that you have no way of distinguishing between automatic and autonomously intelligent behaviour.

DAVID (under “plant automatic breathing”): Plants open and close breathing pores by automatic molecular reactions:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180409103942.htm
DAVID’s comment: A great example of automaticity.

So is our own breathing. That doesn’t mean all our actions are automatic.

dhw: As in my two comments above, you ignore all the attributes of intelligence, and insist that every bacterial adaptation – both nice and nasty – in the history of life has been preprogrammed or personally dabbled by your God, whose one and only purpose, let us remember, was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. And you think this is logical.
DAVID: Inventing bacteria is only the beginning of evolution of the brain. Evolution had to proceed from that point to now. The brain is the most complex unexpected outcome one could imagine.

For those of us who believe in common descent, evolution did (why “had to”?) proceed from that point until now. I don’t see how that proves that every bacterial adaptation in the history of life has been preprogrammed or dabbled by your God in order to produce the complexity of our brain. He could have given bacteria the means to do their own adapting. And he could have been pleasantly surprised by the unexpected outcome, or he could have experimented to get the outcome he desired, or he could suddenly have thought of a great new idea and done a dabble. All of these are far more logical and no more "humanizing" than his having a desire right from the beginning to create something that would recognize him and have a relationship with him, but first having to build the weaverbird’s nest (plus a few million other examples) in order to keep life going before he could do what he wanted to do.

4623 views

DAVID: If a particular stimulus to a bacterium results in a series of molecular reactions leading to a molecular response, as research shows, it must be inferred that it is automatic. I'll stick to that interpretation as a strong inference.

dhw: Of course you will. And you will ignore any research which suggests that bacteria are capable of autonomous self-modification, cooperation, problem-solving, decision-making and any other attribute that we associate with intelligence, even though you admit that you have no way of distinguishing between automatic and autonomously intelligent behaviour.

But neither can your favorite scientists. They have a right to their assumptions which have equal validity to mine. Your faith in cell intelligence implies there must be decision making. Research clearly shows decisions are not made, but are automatic actions programmed in the molecular reactions.

DAVID (under “plant automatic breathing”): Plants open and close breathing pores by automatic molecular reactions:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180409103942.htm

DAVID’s comment: A great example of automaticity.

dhw: So is our own breathing. That doesn’t mean all our actions are automatic.

Most of your ability to live goes on automatically. Thinking is one of the few differences. The automatic pore responses are simply a series of molecular reactions to a stimulus, no decisions required.

dhw: As in my two comments above, you ignore all the attributes of intelligence, and insist that every bacterial adaptation – both nice and nasty – in the history of life has been preprogrammed or personally dabbled by your God, whose one and only purpose, let us remember, was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. And you think this is logical.
DAVID: Inventing bacteria is only the beginning of evolution of the brain. Evolution had to proceed from that point to now. The brain is the most complex unexpected outcome one could imagine.

dhw: For those of us who believe in common descent, evolution did (why “had to”?) proceed from that point until now. I don’t see how that proves that every bacterial adaptation in the history of life has been preprogrammed or dabbled by your God in order to produce the complexity of our brain. He could have given bacteria the means to do their own adapting. And he could have been pleasantly surprised by the unexpected outcome, or he could have experimented to get the outcome he desired, or he could suddenly have thought of a great new idea and done a dabble. All of these are far more logical and no more "humanizing" than his having a desire right from the beginning to create something that would recognize him and have a relationship with him, but first having to build the weaverbird’s nest (plus a few million other examples) in order to keep life going before he could do what he wanted to do.

Evolution had to proceed under God's direction because of His purpose to produce humans. I think God knew what He wanted to do from the point that He started he universe. You produce a doubtful hesitant God in your mind's meanderings about Him.

4654 views

DAVID: If a particular stimulus to a bacterium results in a series of molecular reactions leading to a molecular response, as research shows, it must be inferred that it is automatic. I'll stick to that interpretation as a strong inference.
dhw: Of course you will. And you will ignore any research which suggests that bacteria are capable of autonomous self-modification, cooperation, problem-solving, decision-making and any other attribute that we associate with intelligence, even though you admit that you have no way of distinguishing between automatic and autonomously intelligent behaviour.
DAVID: But neither can your favorite scientists. They have a right to their assumptions which have equal validity to mine.

Thank you. In that case, please stop stating that they are automatons, as it were a scientific fact. It is a purely subjective option.

DAVID: Your faith in cell intelligence implies there must be decision making. Research clearly shows decisions are not made, but are automatic actions programmed in the molecular reactions.

And there you go again! There are umpteen websites on the subject of “How do cells make decisions?” Here is the first one on the long list:

How Do Cells Make Decisions: Engineering Micro- and ...
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jo/2010/363106

Abstract
Cell migration contributes to cancer metastasis and involves cell adhesion to the extracellular matrix (ECM), force generation through the cell's cytoskeletal, and finally cell detachment. Both adhesive cues from the ECM and soluble cues from neighbouring cells and tissue trigger intracellular signalling pathways that are essential for cell migration. While the machinery of many signalling pathways is relatively well understood, how hierarchies of different and conflicting signals are established is a new area of cellular cancer research. We examine the recent advances in microfabrication, microfluidics, and nanotechnology that can be utilized to engineer micro- and nanoscaled cellular environments. Controlling both adhesive and soluble cues for migration may allow us to decipher how cells become motile, choose the direction for migration, and how oncogenic transformations influences these decision-making processes.(My bold)

You and others may tell us the decision-making processes are all automatic, but as you so rightly say over and over again, nobody can tell the difference, and both views have equal validity.

4684 views

dhw: And there you go again! There are umpteen websites on the subject of “How do cells make decisions?” Here is the first one on the long list:

How Do Cells Make Decisions: Engineering Micro- and ...
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jo/2010/363106

Abstract
Cell migration contributes to cancer metastasis and involves cell adhesion to the extracellular matrix (ECM), force generation through the cell's cytoskeletal, and finally cell detachment. Both adhesive cues from the ECM and soluble cues from neighbouring cells and tissue trigger intracellular signalling pathways that are essential for cell migration. While the machinery of many signalling pathways is relatively well understood, how hierarchies of different and conflicting signals are established is a new area of cellular cancer research. We examine the recent advances in microfabrication, microfluidics, and nanotechnology that can be utilized to engineer micro- and nanoscaled cellular environments. Controlling both adhesive and soluble cues for migration may allow us to decipher how cells become motile, choose the direction for migration, and how oncogenic transformations influences these decision-making processes.(My bold)

You and others may tell us the decision-making processes are all automatic, but as you so rightly say over and over again, nobody can tell the difference, and both views have equal validity.

The full understanding of the signal pathways described above are not completely researched. When they are fully understood, as they are now in other situations, it will be shown to be a meaningful series of molecular reactions and nothing more: a stimulus with a series of molecular reactions to provide a molecular response, all based on information coded into the molecular 3-D shapes.

4648 views

dhw: You and others may tell us the decision-making processes are all automatic, but as you so rightly say over and over again, nobody can tell the difference, and both views have equal validity.

DAVID: The full understanding of the signal pathways described above are not completely researched. When they are fully understood, as they are now in other situations, it will be shown to be a meaningful series of molecular reactions and nothing more: a stimulus with a series of molecular reactions to provide a molecular response, all based on information coded into the molecular 3-D shapes.

First you tell me: “Your faith in cell intelligence implies that there must be decision making. Research clearly shows decisions are not made….” I refer you to websites in which research discusses cellular decision making. Then you tell me the research is not complete, and when it is, the researchers will confirm your own conclusion that, even though nobody can tell the difference between intelligence and automaticity, you are right. This puts you on an intellectual par with those folk who claim that when research into the nature of the universe is complete, it will prove that there is nothing beyond the material world and so there is no God. Ts, ts. :-(

4656 views

dhw: You and others may tell us the decision-making processes are all automatic, but as you so rightly say over and over again, nobody can tell the difference, and both views have equal validity.

DAVID: The full understanding of the signal pathways described above are not completely researched. When they are fully understood, as they are now in other situations, it will be shown to be a meaningful series of molecular reactions and nothing more: a stimulus with a series of molecular reactions to provide a molecular response, all based on information coded into the molecular 3-D shapes.

dhw: First you tell me: “Your faith in cell intelligence implies that there must be decision making. Research clearly shows decisions are not made….” I refer you to websites in which research discusses cellular decision making. Then you tell me the research is not complete, and when it is, the researchers will confirm your own conclusion that, even though nobody can tell the difference between intelligence and automaticity, you are right. This puts you on an intellectual par with those folk who claim that when research into the nature of the universe is complete, it will prove that there is nothing beyond the material world and so there is no God. Ts, ts.

I have only told you what I expect research to show as each series of stimuli result in a molecular series of reactions. From my training in biochemistry in med school this is what I expect to see. Remember intelligently designed responses will look just like active intelligence. And I believe in intelligent design, remember?

4641 views

DAVID: The full understanding of the signal pathways described above are not completely researched. When they are fully understood, as they are now in other situations, it will be shown to be a meaningful series of molecular reactions and nothing more: a stimulus with a series of molecular reactions to provide a molecular response, all based on information coded into the molecular 3-D shapes.

dhw: First you tell me: “Your faith in cell intelligence implies that there must be decision making. Research clearly shows decisions are not made….” I refer you to websites in which research discusses cellular decision making. Then you tell me the research is not complete, and when it is, the researchers will confirm your own conclusion that, even though nobody can tell the difference between intelligence and automaticity, you are right. This puts you on an intellectual par with those folk who claim that when research into the nature of the universe is complete, it will prove that there is nothing beyond the material world and so there is no God. Ts, ts. :-(

DAVID: I have only told you what I expect research to show as each series of stimuli result in a molecular series of reactions. From my training in biochemistry in med school this is what I expect to see. Remember intelligently designed responses will look just like active intelligence. And I believe in intelligent design, remember?

I have a shrewd suspicion that Dawkins’ expectations are also based on his training and research, and that Shapiro’s championship of cellular intelligence is also based on his training and research, and both of these might possibly be of more recent vintage than your own. But your and their qualifications are completely beside the point. Remember active intelligence will look just like intelligently designed responses, and (in a theistic context) intelligent design can refer to the design of active intelligence as well as to the design of intelligently designed responses. And remember also your own wise words, written just three days ago, concerning the scientists who disagree with you: “They have a right to their assumptions which have equal validity to mine.” So do please stop dismissing a hypothesis that has equal validity to your own.

4642 views

DAVID: The full understanding of the signal pathways described above are not completely researched. When they are fully understood, as they are now in other situations, it will be shown to be a meaningful series of molecular reactions and nothing more: a stimulus with a series of molecular reactions to provide a molecular response, all based on information coded into the molecular 3-D shapes.

dhw: First you tell me: “Your faith in cell intelligence implies that there must be decision making. Research clearly shows decisions are not made….” I refer you to websites in which research discusses cellular decision making. Then you tell me the research is not complete, and when it is, the researchers will confirm your own conclusion that, even though nobody can tell the difference between intelligence and automaticity, you are right. This puts you on an intellectual par with those folk who claim that when research into the nature of the universe is complete, it will prove that there is nothing beyond the material world and so there is no God. Ts, ts.

DAVID: I have only told you what I expect research to show as each series of stimuli result in a molecular series of reactions. From my training in biochemistry in med school this is what I expect to see. Remember intelligently designed responses will look just like active intelligence. And I believe in intelligent design, remember?

dhw: I have a shrewd suspicion that Dawkins’ expectations are also based on his training and research, and that Shapiro’s championship of cellular intelligence is also based on his training and research, and both of these might possibly be of more recent vintage than your own. But your and their qualifications are completely beside the point. Remember active intelligence will look just like intelligently designed responses, and (in a theistic context) intelligent design can refer to the design of active intelligence as well as to the design of intelligently designed responses. And remember also your own wise words, written just three days ago, concerning the scientists who disagree with you: “They have a right to their assumptions which have equal validity to mine.” So do please stop dismissing a hypothesis that has equal validity to your own.

Interesting response. Like Dawkins and Shapiro I've followed biochemistry all my life. I didn't stop thinking after med school. All I said was I expect further research to prove my point, and I agree you, that you Dawkins and Shapiro all have a right to your current position to which I disagree.

4624 views

dhw: Remember active intelligence will look just like intelligently designed responses, and (in a theistic context) intelligent design can refer to the design of active intelligence as well as to the design of intelligently designed responses. And remember also your own wise words, written just three days ago, concerning the scientists who disagree with you: “They have a right to their assumptions which have equal validity to mine.” So do please stop dismissing a hypothesis that has equal validity to your own.

DAVID: Interesting response. Like Dawkins and Shapiro I've followed biochemistry all my life. I didn't stop thinking after med school. All I said was I expect further research to prove my point, and I agree you, that you Dawkins and Shapiro all have a right to your current position to which I disagree.

Thank you. Perhaps then you would stop pretending that examples of automatic behaviour somehow prove that there is no such thing as autonomous behaviour in small organisms. Of course the influence of cellular intelligence on evolution (as opposed to your divine preprogramming and dabbling) remains a hypothesis, since nobody “knows” how evolutionary innovation came about, but you cannot claim that science disproves it, and you certainly cannot claim that science offers support for your own hypothesis.

4636 views

dhw: Remember active intelligence will look just like intelligently designed responses, and (in a theistic context) intelligent design can refer to the design of active intelligence as well as to the design of intelligently designed responses. And remember also your own wise words, written just three days ago, concerning the scientists who disagree with you: “They have a right to their assumptions which have equal validity to mine.” So do please stop dismissing a hypothesis that has equal validity to your own.

DAVID: Interesting response. Like Dawkins and Shapiro I've followed biochemistry all my life. I didn't stop thinking after med school. All I said was I expect further research to prove my point, and I agree you, that you Dawkins and Shapiro all have a right to your current position to which I disagree.

dhw: Thank you. Perhaps then you would stop pretending that examples of automatic behaviour somehow prove that there is no such thing as autonomous behaviour in small organisms. Of course the influence of cellular intelligence on evolution (as opposed to your divine preprogramming and dabbling) remains a hypothesis, since nobody “knows” how evolutionary innovation came about, but you cannot claim that science disproves it, and you certainly cannot claim that science offers support for your own hypothesis.

I certainly can make the claim when I see a research paper that shows a series of automatic molecular reactions to a specific stimulus.

4649 views

DAVID: Interesting response. Like Dawkins and Shapiro I've followed biochemistry all my life. I didn't stop thinking after med school. All I said was I expect further research to prove my point, and I agree you, that you Dawkins and Shapiro all have a right to your current position to which I disagree.

dhw: Thank you. Perhaps then you would stop pretending that examples of automatic behaviour somehow prove that there is no such thing as autonomous behaviour in small organisms. Of course the influence of cellular intelligence on evolution (as opposed to your divine preprogramming and dabbling) remains a hypothesis, since nobody “knows” how evolutionary innovation came about, but you cannot claim that science disproves it, and you certainly cannot claim that science offers support for your own hypothesis.

DAVID: I certainly can make the claim when I see a research paper that shows a series of automatic molecular reactions to a specific stimulus.

You only pick examples of automatic molecular reactions, and choose to ignore the research that demonstrates decision-making or concludes that small organisms are intelligent. I’m sorry, but having agreed on 10 April that the views of such scientists are as valid as your own, you cannot then claim that science disproves their views or supports yours.

4632 views

DAVID: Interesting response. Like Dawkins and Shapiro I've followed biochemistry all my life. I didn't stop thinking after med school. All I said was I expect further research to prove my point, and I agree you, that you Dawkins and Shapiro all have a right to your current position to which I disagree.

dhw: Thank you. Perhaps then you would stop pretending that examples of automatic behaviour somehow prove that there is no such thing as autonomous behaviour in small organisms. Of course the influence of cellular intelligence on evolution (as opposed to your divine preprogramming and dabbling) remains a hypothesis, since nobody “knows” how evolutionary innovation came about, but you cannot claim that science disproves it, and you certainly cannot claim that science offers support for your own hypothesis.

DAVID: I certainly can make the claim when I see a research paper that shows a series of automatic molecular reactions to a specific stimulus.

dhw: You only pick examples of automatic molecular reactions, and choose to ignore the research that demonstrates decision-making or concludes that small organisms are intelligent. I’m sorry, but having agreed on 10 April that the views of such scientists are as valid as your own, you cannot then claim that science disproves their views or supports yours.

I can only pick automatic reactions, because every time a reaction is studied it turns out to be automatic. Since not all reactions are as yet elucidated, I can only predict that when they all are studied I will found to be right. This is all I have actually stated in the past.

4633 views

DAVID: I certainly can make the claim when I see a research paper that shows a series of automatic molecular reactions to a specific stimulus.

dhw: You only pick examples of automatic molecular reactions, and choose to ignore the research that demonstrates decision-making or concludes that small organisms are intelligent. I’m sorry, but having agreed on 10 April that the views of such scientists are as valid as your own, you cannot then claim that science disproves their views or supports yours.

DAVID: I can only pick automatic reactions, because every time a reaction is studied it turns out to be automatic. Since not all reactions are as yet elucidated, I can only predict that when they all are studied I will found to be right. This is all I have actually stated in the past.

It doesn’t turn out to be automatic. Whenever there is a choice of responses, there is a decision to be taken, and whenever there is a new problem to be solved, there have to be new responses of which, as you keep repeating, it is impossible to say they are intelligent or automatic. This is a matter of interpretation, and as you rightly pointed out, “my” scientists’ interpretations are just as valid as those of “your” scientists.

4623 views

DAVID: I certainly can make the claim when I see a research paper that shows a series of automatic molecular reactions to a specific stimulus.

dhw: You only pick examples of automatic molecular reactions, and choose to ignore the research that demonstrates decision-making or concludes that small organisms are intelligent. I’m sorry, but having agreed on 10 April that the views of such scientists are as valid as your own, you cannot then claim that science disproves their views or supports yours.

DAVID: I can only pick automatic reactions, because every time a reaction is studied it turns out to be automatic. Since not all reactions are as yet elucidated, I can only predict that when they all are studied I will found to be right. This is all I have actually stated in the past.

dhw: It doesn’t turn out to be automatic. Whenever there is a choice of responses, there is a decision to be taken, and whenever there is a new problem to be solved, there have to be new responses of which, as you keep repeating, it is impossible to say they are intelligent or automatic. This is a matter of interpretation, and as you rightly pointed out, “my” scientists’ interpretations are just as valid as those of “your” scientists.

How do you know there is a choice of responses? A bacterium is not a human. It senses food and moves toward it, danger and moves away, an enemy and attacks, waste products accumulate and expels. It is simplicity. All of this is automatic.

4674 views

dhw: It doesn’t turn out to be automatic. Whenever there is a choice of responses, there is a decision to be taken, and whenever there is a new problem to be solved, there have to be new responses of which, as you keep repeating, it is impossible to say they are intelligent or automatic. This is a matter of interpretation, and as you rightly pointed out, “my” scientists’ interpretations are just as valid as those of “your” scientists.

DAVID: How do you know there is a choice of responses? A bacterium is not a human. It senses food and moves toward it, danger and moves away, an enemy and attacks, waste products accumulate and expels. It is simplicity. All of this is automatic.

Some time ago, we discussed experiments with E-coli in which they were given a choice - but I don't remember the details. In any case, when humans devise means of killing bacteria, they are initially successful, but after billions of bacterial deaths, in due course bacteria come up with solutions. What takes them so long if the solution is already built in to be applied automatically? I don’t know why you keep raising objections when you have agreed that the opinion of pro-intelligence scientists is just as valid as your own anti-intelligence opinion. Here are some examples of bacterial intelligence listed on Wikipedia. You will say they are automatic, and others will say they are evidence of intelligence.

Microbial intelligence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_intelligence

Microbial intelligence (popularly known as bacterial intelligence) is the intelligence shown by microorganisms. The concept encompasses complex adaptive behaviour shown by single cells, and altruistic or cooperative behavior in populations of like or unlike cells mediated by chemical signalling that induces physiological or behavioral changes in cells and influences colony structures.
• The formation of biofilms requires joint decision by the whole colony.
• Biofilm of Bacillus subtilis can use electric signals (ion transmission) to synchronize growth so that the innermost cells of the biofilm do not starve.[3]
• Under nutritional stress bacterial colonies can organise themselves in such a way so as to maximise nutrient availability.
• Bacteria reorganise themselves under antibiotic stress.
• Bacteria can swap genes (such as genes coding antibiotic resistance) between members of mixed species colonies.
• Individual cells of myxobacteria and cellular slime moulds coordinate to produce complex structures or move as multicellular entities.
• Populations of bacteria use quorum sensing to judge their own densities and change their behaviors accordingly. This occurs in the formation of biofilms, infectious disease processes, and the light organs of bobtail squid.
• For any bacterium to enter a host's cell, the cell must display receptors to which bacteria can adhere and be able to enter the cell. Some strains of E. coli are able to internalize themselves into a host's cell even without the presence of specific receptors as they bring their own receptor to which they then attach and enter the cell.
• Under rough circumstances, some bacteria transform into endospores to resist heat and dehydration.
• A huge array of microorganisms have the ability to overcome being recognized by the immune system as they change their surface antigens so that any defense mechanisms directed against previously present antigens are now useless with the newly expressed ones.

4650 views

dhw: It doesn’t turn out to be automatic. Whenever there is a choice of responses, there is a decision to be taken, and whenever there is a new problem to be solved, there have to be new responses of which, as you keep repeating, it is impossible to say they are intelligent or automatic. This is a matter of interpretation, and as you rightly pointed out, “my” scientists’ interpretations are just as valid as those of “your” scientists.

DAVID: How do you know there is a choice of responses? A bacterium is not a human. It senses food and moves toward it, danger and moves away, an enemy and attacks, waste products accumulate and expels. It is simplicity. All of this is automatic.

dhw: Some time ago, we discussed experiments with E-coli in which they were given a choice - but I don't remember the details. In any case, when humans devise means of killing bacteria, they are initially successful, but after billions of bacterial deaths, in due course bacteria come up with solutions. What takes them so long if the solution is already built in to be applied automatically? I don’t know why you keep raising objections when you have agreed that the opinion of pro-intelligence scientists is just as valid as your own anti-intelligence opinion. Here are some examples of bacterial intelligence listed on Wikipedia. You will say they are automatic, and others will say they are evidence of intelligence.

Microbial intelligence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_intelligence

Microbial intelligence (popularly known as bacterial intelligence) is the intelligence shown by microorganisms. The concept encompasses complex adaptive behaviour shown by single cells, and altruistic or cooperative behavior in populations of like or unlike cells mediated by chemical signalling that induces physiological or behavioral changes in cells and influences colony structures.
• The formation of biofilms requires joint decision by the whole colony.
• Biofilm of Bacillus subtilis can use electric signals (ion transmission) to synchronize growth so that the innermost cells of the biofilm do not starve.[3]
• Under nutritional stress bacterial colonies can organise themselves in such a way so as to maximise nutrient availability.
• Bacteria reorganise themselves under antibiotic stress.
• Bacteria can swap genes (such as genes coding antibiotic resistance) between members of mixed species colonies.
• Individual cells of myxobacteria and cellular slime moulds coordinate to produce complex structures or move as multicellular entities.
• Populations of bacteria use quorum sensing to judge their own densities and change their behaviors accordingly. This occurs in the formation of biofilms, infectious disease processes, and the light organs of bobtail squid.
• For any bacterium to enter a host's cell, the cell must display receptors to which bacteria can adhere and be able to enter the cell. Some strains of E. coli are able to internalize themselves into a host's cell even without the presence of specific receptors as they bring their own receptor to which they then attach and enter the cell.
• Under rough circumstances, some bacteria transform into endospores to resist heat and dehydration.
• A huge array of microorganisms have the ability to overcome being recognized by the immune system as they change their surface antigens so that any defense mechanisms directed against previously present antigens are now useless with the newly expressed ones.

All of which an be automatic.

4693 views

dhw: Here are some examples of bacterial intelligence listed on Wikipedia. You will say they are automatic, and others will say they are evidence of intelligence. (My bold)

Microbial intelligence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_intelligence
[…]

DAVID: All of which can be automatic.

As predicted above. And as you so rightly said, your opinion is no more valid than that of the scientists who say the examples (as listed under “Microbial intelligence”) are the product of intelligence. And so you cannot claim that science supports your rejection of my hypothesis that cellular intelligence might be a driving force behind evolution.

4628 views

dhw: Here are some examples of bacterial intelligence listed on Wikipedia. You will say they are automatic, and others will say they are evidence of intelligence. (My bold)

Microbial intelligence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_intelligence
[…]

DAVID: All of which can be automatic.

dhw: As predicted above. And as you so rightly said, your opinion is no more valid than that of the scientists who say the examples (as listed under “Microbial intelligence”) are the product of intelligence. And so you cannot claim that science supports your rejection of my hypothesis that cellular intelligence might be a driving force behind evolution.

I will stick to my observation that every reaction which is elucidated turns out to show automaticity.

4636 views

dhw: (under “Biological complexity”): The papers have been full of this discovery, as a possible method of solving the enormous problems plastic has created. I read one comment to the effect that evolution would probably have created the same improvement, but it would have taken far longer. I agree with you that this is no accident. It is living proof of the manner in which bacteria adjust themselves to new environments and new opportunities. I do not believe that 3.8 billion years ago they were preprogrammed to eat plastic, or that your God has come along to teach them. Do you?

DAVID: No I don't. A shift in one amino acid does the trick. Bacteria have thousands of enzymes in which this could happen. Nylonase is one recent example.

If they can produce thousands of enzymes, how do they know which ones to produce in any given situation? Do you think they are not aware of the different conditions and opportunities, and the necessary choices are made for them without them even knowing? When we produce antibiotics, and bacteria die by the millions before finding their own solution, what happened to their automatic mechanism for selecting the appropriate “shift”?

xxx

dhw: Here are some examples of bacterial intelligence listed on Wikipedia. You will say they are automatic, and others will say they are evidence of intelligence. (My bold)
Microbial intelligence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_intelligence
[…]
DAVID: All of which can be automatic.
dhw: As predicted above. And as you so rightly said, your opinion is no more valid than that of the scientists who say the examples (as listed under “Microbial intelligence”) are the product of intelligence. And so you cannot claim that science supports your rejection of my hypothesis that cellular intelligence might be a driving force behind evolution.
DAVID: I will stick to my observation that every reaction which is elucidated turns out to show automaticity.

It is not an observation; it is an opinion. As you very well know, other scientists have observed reactions and “elucidated” them as manifestations of intelligence.

4630 views

Non-moving plants have to find water. Their roots sense where the water is hiding:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181222180749.htm

"Roots are critical for plants to acquire water and soluble nutrients from the soil. Water is essential for plant growth, yet changing climatic conditions makes acquiring moisture from soil even more challenging. Plants are able to adapt to different soil moisture conditions by altering their root architecture, but up until now, it was not understood how this is done.

"Root branches only form when in direct contact with soil moisture using an adaptive response termed 'hydropatterning'. Professor Malcolm Bennett of the University of Nottingham, and Professor Ari Sadanandom from the Department of Biosciences at Durham University, discovered that hydropatterning is controlled by a branching master gene called ARF7. Their teams observed plant roots lacking ARF7 were no longer able to hydropattern. The researchers concluded that when roots are exposed to moisture ARF7 remains active and promotes root branching, but when exposed to air, ARF7 is modified and inactivated, blocking root branching.

"'Plants are relatively immobile and therefore their growth and development is very much dependent on their environment. Our research has identified the particular protein which can modify, and even inactivate root branching, therefore limiting plant growth and development.
"This is hugely exciting as it opens up the possibility for us to adapt this protein interaction and potentially develop plants that could continue to branch roots even in challenging conditions such as water scarcity."

"Professor Bennett concluded: "Water is critical for plant growth, development and, ultimately, their survival. Surprisingly, understanding how plants sense water availability has eluded scientists until now. By studying how plant roots modify their branching in response to water availability, we have uncovered a novel molecular mechanism."

Comment: The finding is a logical result. Root cells have sensor molecules which direct growth of roots toward water, under this genetic control. The issue is how did it evolve naturally, because if the ability did not exist in the initial plants, they would not have survived, except in very wet areas. Why did plants end up in semi-arid areas unless they had this ability? They would not have attempted such areas unless they had this ability, which suggests they had to be designed for this ability .

3640 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum