Bacteria, God & Double Standards

The consciousness thread is becoming messy as there are two separate discussions going on. Hence the new heading. If anyone is still following this discussion, the question of bacterial intelligence is central to the hypothesis that evolutionary innovation might be driven by the individual, autonomous, inventive intelligence of cells/cell communities responding to changing environments - as opposed to Darwin's random mutations and David's divine preplanning and dabbling.
 
I am going to slightly juggle elements of David's last post to me (under Consciousness...), as they seem to me to highlight the double standards that operate when minds are closed.-Dhw: [referring to belief in God]: I would argue that without direct evidence it is perfectly reasonable to have doubts (as with chance, string theory, the multiverse etc.).-1) DAVID: (referring to belief in God) Once again, you want absolute proof before you can believe in anything. 
2) DAVID: We know we can think. Do we really know if bacteria think in any provable sort of way? -As with God, absolute proof is impossible, because we can never enter the mind of a bacterium (if it has a mind). However, many experts maintain from close observation and experiments that bacteria can think, whereas your proof of God's existence beyond a reasonable doubt consists purely of suppositions (see below), since direct observation and experimentation are impossible. I do not even ask you to believe. I merely ask you to keep an open mind instead of insisting that these experts are in your own words absolutely wrong.
 
And so to the details of your last post:
 
dhw: In those other than ourselves, we judge by behaviour, and researchers have observed the behaviour of bacteria and concluded that they can think.
DAVID: A conclusion is not a proof, only a supposition.-Quite right. Your conclusion that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt is a supposition without proof. In your post dramatically headlined Cosmologic philosophy: string theory die! you talk of the necessity for empirical evidence vs. theories going nowhere. God theory die? -dhw: You are applying double standards, since you attribute mentation to your dog solely by observing its behaviour. 
DAVID: Yesterday our show horse came in from grazing in a pasture. His hooves were sore from being trimmed the day before. He headed for a door over a large patch of gravel drive, spotted a side door off the grass and immediately changed course for the easier path. Thinking horse?-Yes, thinking horse. It considered information gained from its automatic perceptions and made a deliberate decision to change its normal course. This is exactly the process described in Pfeffer's experiment:-"Experiments in 1883 conducted by Wilhelm Pfeffer showed that bacteria will swim toward good food like chicken soup and away from poisons such as mop disinfectant. 
Pfeffer also learned that bacteria can make decisions. He made sure that his bacteria knew the location of chicken soup. Then he separated them from it with a mild mixture of disinfectant. He found that the little fellows would swim as fast as they could through the disinfectant to get to the soup."-Bacteria normally swim AWAY from poison, but in this instance they had to take a decision that would mean deviating from their normal behaviour. -dhw: You claimed...that your dog was capable of mentation. What sort of ideas does your dog create, thereby proving mentation, that bacteria don't create?-DAVID: He communicates with us by bringing toys to play, starring at me when he needs to go out, changing direction when we are playing keep away, all requiring some thought and planning.-Experts tell us that bacteria communicate with one another, form communities, work out strategies, take decisions...all of which require some thought and planning. How can you possibly know that the experts are absolutely wrong?

Post reply

4318 views

dhw: As with God, absolute proof is impossible, because we can never enter the mind of a bacterium (if it has a mind).-I keep repeating, ad nauseum, that if the bacteria has a complete play book of automatic responses, one cannot tell the difference between thinking bacteria and fully programmed bacteria with intelligently given information in their DNA. Each postulate is equally likely. And so far each response mechanism studied is described in automatic biochemical terms.-> dhw: Experts tell us that bacteria communicate with one another, form communities, work out strategies, take decisions...all of which require some thought and planning. How can you possibly know that the experts are absolutely wrong?-It is theirs' and your opinion that these strategies and decisions require 'some thought'. All can also be fully explained as automatic responses. No one of us is inside a bacterium to tell the difference.

Post reply

4177 views

dhw: As with God, absolute proof is impossible, because we can never enter the mind of a bacterium (if it has a mind).-DAVID: I keep repeating, ad nauseum, that if the bacteria has a complete play book of automatic responses, one cannot tell the difference between thinking bacteria and fully programmed bacteria with intelligently given information in their DNA. Each postulate is equally likely. And so far each response mechanism studied is described in automatic biochemical terms.-And I keep pointing out ad nauseam that we CAN only study mechanical responses, because thought processes in all organisms including ourselves and your dog can - at least for the time being - only be deduced from their results (e.g behaviour). And I keep pointing out ad nauseam that if two postulates are equally likely, i.e. that intelligent behaviour might or might not be caused by intelligence, it would be logical to keep an open mind rather than dismissing one of them as absolutely wrong. (I am not asking you to believe it.)
 
dhw: Experts tell us that bacteria communicate with one another, form communities, work out strategies, take decisions...all of which require some thought and planning. How can you possibly know that the experts are absolutely wrong?

DAVID: It is theirs' and your opinion that these strategies and decisions require 'some thought'. All can also be fully explained as automatic responses. No one of us is inside a bacterium to tell the difference.-You have repeated my own argument that we can never enter the mind of a bacterium (if it has a mind), just as we can never know if God exists unless he reveals himself unmistakably. Absolute proof in both contexts is impossible. I respect - though I do not share - your opinion that the God postulate is more likely, but once again I remain totally baffled by your dismissing as absolutely wrong a postulate which you agree is just as likely as your own. I wonder how you would respond to someone who says God's existence and non-existence are equally likely, but theists are absolutely wrong.

Post reply

4146 views


> dhw: And I keep pointing out ad nauseam that we CAN only study mechanical responses, because thought processes in all organisms including ourselves and your dog can - at least for the time being - only be deduced from their results (e.g behaviour). And I keep pointing out ad nauseam that if two postulates are equally likely, i.e. that intelligent behaviour might or might not be caused by intelligence, it would be logical to keep an open mind rather than dismissing one of them as absolutely wrong. (I am not asking you to believe it.)
> 
> You have repeated my own argument that we can never enter the mind of a bacterium (if it has a mind), just as we can never know if God exists unless he reveals himself unmistakably. Absolute proof in both contexts is impossible. I respect - though I do not share - your opinion that the God postulate is more likely, but once again I remain totally baffled by your dismissing as absolutely wrong a postulate which you agree is just as likely as your own. I wonder how you would respond to someone who says God's existence and non-existence are equally likely, but theists are absolutely wrong.-Good arguments, but since the odds are on the surface 50/50 I have a right to take a firm choice and choose one for strong belief, which I have done. Call it faith if you will. One other point I keep repeating is the fact that our bodies are made up of trillions of little machine cells that work and respond perfectly on their own to all sorts of stimuli so we can live, if lucky, to eight score and ten plus, very automatically. Our cells are an exact reproduction of the single-celled organisms we evolved from. Therefore the single cells are also automatons. Remember it is DNA all the way down (!) to paraphrase Hawkins' funny tale.

Post reply

4153 views

DAVID: Good arguments, but since the odds are on the surface 50/50 I have a right to take a firm choice and choose one for strong belief, which I have done. Call it faith if you will.-Thank you. Of course I accept your right to choose, just as I accept your right to choose God over chance. My only objection is to the apparent authority with which you reject the opinions of others (absolutely wrong), which in a religious or anti-religious context would be tantamount to extremism - something we both abhor.
 
DAVID: One other point I keep repeating is the fact that our bodies are made up of trillions of little machine cells that work and respond perfectly on their own to all sorts of stimuli so we can live, if lucky, to eight score and ten plus, very automatically. Our cells are an exact reproduction of the single-celled organisms we evolved from. Therefore the single cells are also automatons. Remember it is DNA all the way down (!) to paraphrase Hawkins' funny tale.-I also accept this argument, apart from your conclusion that therefore single cells are also automatons. When cell communities combine into new organs/organisms, they must clearly establish a pattern that will be repeated over and over again if the new organ/organism is to survive. The cells accept their role, much like ants, and will fulfil it automatically. However, when conditions change, pure automatism may result in extinction. That is why some cells/cell communities change. Adaptation is one possibility, but the same mechanism may also be capable of innovation. If the innovation works, the new cell communities will again function automatically. That is the alternative I am suggesting to Darwin's random mutations and your own divine preprogramming and dabbling, though it does not exclude your God's invention of the mechanism. The claim by many experts that bacteria (single cells) are capable of thought gives credibility to this proposal, and if faith is the factor that makes you choose one 50% over the other 50%, you will surely acknowledge that my 50% provides a possible theoretical basis for this hypothesis. (I see ALL the hypotheses, including your own, as having nothing but theoretical bases.)

Post reply

4157 views

David: Therefore the single cells are also automatons. Remember it is DNA all the way down (!) to paraphrase Hawkins' funny tale.[/i]
> 
> dhw: I also accept this argument, apart from your conclusion that therefore single cells are also automatons. When cell communities combine into new organs/organisms, they must clearly establish a pattern that will be repeated over and over again if the new organ/organism is to survive. The cells accept their role, much like ants, and will fulfil it automatically. However, when conditions change, pure automatism may result in extinction. That is why some cells/cell communities change.... (I see ALL the hypotheses, including your own, as having nothing but theoretical bases.)-You are confusing the automatic reactions to stimuli I have discussed in the past, with the cells ability to adapt through epigenetic and mutational changes when required. The cells have both abilities. James Shapiro is clear on this. And I know you reject all theories as a bone fide agnostic.

Post reply

4200 views

dhw: I also accept this argument, apart from your conclusion that therefore single cells are also automatons. When cell communities combine into new organs/organisms, they must clearly establish a pattern that will be repeated over and over again if the new organ/organism is to survive. The cells accept their role, much like ants, and will fulfil it automatically. However, when conditions change, pure automatism may result in extinction. That is why some cells/cell communities change.... (I see ALL the hypotheses, including your own, as having nothing but theoretical bases.)-DAVID: You are confusing the automatic reactions to stimuli I have discussed in the past, with the cells ability to adapt through epigenetic and mutational changes when required. The cells have both abilities. James Shapiro is clear on this. And I know you reject all theories as a bone fide agnostic.-There is no confusion. Your ... at the end omits the whole point of my post, so let me restore the missing section: Adaptation is one possibility, but the same mechanism may be also be capable of innovation - the alternative which I am offering to random mutations and your own divine pre-preprogramming. Of course we know that cells/cell communities adapt, and the issue is whether their ability to make changes to themselves entails awareness and may extend as far as autonomous invention. Since James Shapiro is one of those specialists who claim that bacteria can think, you can hardly call on him as your ally. But I know you reject any findings that do not coincide with your personal faith. On the other hand I myself, as a bona fide agnostic, neither reject nor accept theories relating to the existence of God (as well as the source of consciousness and the mechanisms of evolution). As you should have realized by now, the hallmark of agnosticism is open-mindedness.

Post reply

4111 views


> DAVID: You are confusing the automatic reactions to stimuli I have discussed in the past, with the cells ability to adapt through epigenetic and mutational changes when required. The cells have both abilities. James Shapiro is clear on this. And I know you reject all theories as a bone fide agnostic.
> 
> dhw: There is no confusion. Your ... at the end omits the whole point of my post, so let me restore the missing section: Adaptation is one possibility, but the same mechanism may be also be capable of innovation - the alternative which I am offering to random mutations and your own divine pre-preprogramming. Of course we know that cells/cell communities adapt,...-I was only objecting to the statement of yours: " pure automatism may result in extinction". We both agree single cells can adapt.

Post reply

4139 views

DAVID: I was only objecting to the statement of yours: "pure automatism may result in extinction". We both agree single cells can adapt.-Just to clarify: if conditions are stable, I agree that cells/cell communities will fulfil their functions automatically. If conditions change, cells/cell communities will either have to change the manner in which they fulfil those functions (adaptation) or perish. You believe adaptation is automatic (which I presume is why you object), but I think it is also possible that the cells/cell communities that survive have used their intelligence to make the adjustments. This possibility may also explain how some cells/cell communities exploit new conditions by inventing new functions (innovation).

Post reply

4122 views

dhw: Just to clarify: if conditions are stable, I agree that cells/cell communities will fulfil their functions automatically. If conditions change, cells/cell communities will either have to change the manner in which they fulfil those functions (adaptation) or perish.-Agreed-> dhw: You believe adaptation is automatic (which I presume is why you object), but I think it is also possible that the cells/cell communities that survive have used their intelligence to make the adjustments. This possibility may also explain how some cells/cell communities exploit new conditions by inventing new functions (innovation).-As before, I do not think single cells have intelligence of their own but instead they are supplied in their DNA and epigenetic mechanisms with intelligent information that is used to create innovation, top down not bottom up.

Post reply

4126 views

In soil the research has expanded the bacterial branches of life enormously and the branches help each other:

http://phys.org/news/2016-10-bacteria-groups-stunning-diversity-underground.html

"One of the most detailed genomic studies of any ecosystem to date has revealed an underground world of stunning microbial diversity, and added dozens of new branches to the tree of life.

***

"As reported online October 24 in the journal Nature Communications, the scientists netted genomes from 80 percent of all known bacterial phyla, a remarkable degree of biological diversity at one location. They also discovered 47 new phylum-level bacterial groups, naming many of them after influential microbiologists and other scientists. And they learned new insights about how microbial communities work together to drive processes that are critical to the planet's climate and life everywhere, such as the carbon and nitrogen cycles.

"These findings shed light on one of Earth's most important and least understood realms of life. The subterranean world hosts up to one-fifth of all biomass, but it remains a mystery.

"Another big outcome is a deeper understanding of the roles subsurface microbes play in globally important carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and sulfur cycles. This information will help to better represent these cycles in predictive models such as climate simulations.

"The scientists conducted metabolic analyses of 36 percent of the organisms detected in the aquifer system. They focused on a phenomenon called metabolic handoff, which essentially means one microbe's waste is another microbe's food. It's known from lab studies that handoffs are needed in certain reactions, but these interconnected networks are widespread and vastly more complex in the real world.

"To understand why it's important to represent metabolic handoffs as accurately as possible in models, consider nitrate, a groundwater contaminant from fertilizers. Subsurface microbes are the primary driver in reducing nitrate to harmless nitrogen gas. There are four steps in this denitrification process, and the third step creates nitrous oxide—one of the most potent greenhouse gases. The process breaks down if microbes that carry out the fourth step are inactive when a pulse of nitrate enters the system.

***

"The scientists found the carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and sulfur cycles are all driven by metabolic handoffs that require an unexpectedly high degree of interdependence among microbes. The vast majority of microorganisms can't fully reduce a compound on their own. It takes a team. There are also backup microbes ready to perform a handoff if first-string microbes are unavailable.

""The combination of high microbial diversity and interconnections through metabolic handoffs likely results in high ecosystem resilience," says Banfield."

Comment: Note the balance of nature among bacteria which support making Earth a stable platform for living organisms. Why bother with multicellularity?

Post reply

3666 views

The development of the Earth's life-giving environment lies in the hands of bacterial reactions. Here a bug that handles methane and iron is described:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161024161655.htm

"A microbe that ‘eats’ both methane and iron: microbiologists have long suspected its existence, but were not able to find it - until now. Researchers have discovered a microorganism that couples the reduction of iron to methane oxidation, and could thus be relevant in controlling greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.

***

" The team of microbiologists and biogeochemists now discovered an archaeon -- the other branch of ancient prokaryotes besides bacteria -- of the order Methanosarcinales that uses iron to convert methane into carbon dioxide. During that process, reduced iron become available to other bacteria. Consequently, the microorganism initiates an energy cascade influencing the iron and methane cycle and thus methane emissions,

***

"Besides, these archaea have another trick up their sleeve. They can turn nitrate into ammonium: the favourite food of the famous anammox bacteria that turn ammonium into nitrogen gas without using oxygen....A bioreactor containing anaerobic methane and ammonium oxidizing microorganisms can be used to simultaneously convert ammonium, methane and oxidized nitrogen in wastewater into harmless nitrogen gas and carbon dioxide, which has much lower global warming potential."

***

"'These findings fill one of the remaining gaps in our understanding of anaerobic methane oxidation. Now we want to further investigate which protein complexes are involved in the process."

***

"The newly discovered process could also lead to new insights into the early history of our planet. Already billions of years ago, Methanosarcinales archaea might have abundantly thrived under the methane-rich atmosphere in the ferruginous (iron holding) Archaean oceans, 4 to 2.5 billion years ago. More information on the metabolism of this organism can therefore shed new light on the long-standing discussion of the role of iron metabolism on early earth."

Comment: Bacteria are built to do everything to make the Earth properly habitable for life. This is an example as to why bacteria are still around doing their job, God's helpful workers!

Post reply

3680 views

RSS Feed of thread

AgnosticWeb.com

Bacteria, God & Double Standards (Evolution)