Clever Corvids: using tools (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, September 03, 2015, 21:25 (3369 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I'm of the firm opinion that thought requires neurons.
dhw: And quite clearly there are many experts in the field who disagree with you, which is why I always find the firmness of your opinion so puzzling!-DAVID: As I explained to Romansh, I was trained as a bio-mechanic in medical school. As a result I am very conversant with the function of kidney cells. They do amazing things on their own and in response to nerve and chemical (hormone) stimulation. So much so that blood tests for those items regulated by kidney cells stay in tight ranges, better than the thinking neurologist can provide with his dialysis machines. Granted these cells don't have to scrounge for food along with their other tasks, but I equate those cells abilities with the tasks required of bacteria to maintain independent life. In medical school there was nary the thought that kidney cells think. -You keep referring to an established community in which cells must stick to their assigned role or there will be disruption (here, disease). I have focused on bacterial intelligence in order to find an explanation for the INNOVATIONS that drive evolution. The cells of the kidney community won't invent something new. Their community WAS the something new. The inventive mechanism will only come into play when there are new conditions to master or exploit. And so if single-celled bacteria are intelligent, as Shapiro and Co maintain, it could be that other cells/cell communities combine their intelligences to invent (or adapt, or perish if their intelligence can't cope). It is an alternative to billions of random mutations, or billions of divine computer programmes, and it would also explain the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution.
 
DAVID: On the other hand Shapiro (whose work I much admire) is immersed in the mono-cellular world, and I would love to meet with him and challenge his statements about bacterial intelligence, based on the biochemistry of cells in the multicellular world. After all multicellularity arose from his world and his favorite cells. I don't think there is much if any change in those intelligent cellular reactions. Evolution is a continuum. I firmly stand by my reasoning. I am sorry you are so puzzled.-But we have agreed that evolution is not a continuum. There are jumps, because innovations break the continuum. Multicellularity has led to every single feature that distinguishes you and me from bacteria, and every innovation required multiple changes, intelligently integrated with all the other cell communities that made up the respective organism. But you know this as well as I do. However, perhaps it is vital for you to believe that cells/cell communities are automatons, because that would mean they couldn't change themselves, and so only God could change them. Might it be, then, that you are so firmly opposed to Shapiro and Co because cellular intelligence (even if it was created by your God) would put paid to your particular theory of divinely planned and preprogrammed anthropocentric evolution?