Brain complexity: circadian controls (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, October 05, 2015, 12:48 (3118 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: But “research into the biochemistry of bacteria” has gone beyond studying the biochemistry. That is the point that you refuse to recognize.
DAVID: I don't know what you are attempting to describe: "has gone beyond studying the biochemistry". I read the articles. All they can study is the biochemistry 
dhw: They also study behaviour, and just as you will deduce that your dog has intelligence of its own by the manner in which he responds to different situations, they deduce the same from their observation of these microorganisms.-DAVID: But the so-called behavior of bacteria are simple reactions. Dogs are much more than that.-You state "simple reactions" as if it were a fact, while other scientists state the opposite as if it were a fact. 50/50 - keep an open mind.-DAVID: I have no way of proving which hypothesis is correct, but I have my own strong opinion, based on my knowledge of how single cells work at all levels of evolution, whether alone or as part of a multicellular organism. The white cells in my body repairing a wound or fighting infection have as amazingly purposeful reactions as anything Shapiro describes in the unicellular bacteria of his studies. All the same to me.-The quotes concerning cells as thinking beings and not machines were reproduced from the article on wound repair. I know you have your own strong opinion. Dawkins also has a strong opinion, and I'm sure he would also claim it is based on his scientific knowledge. But both of you must be aware that what you call “knowledge” is woefully incomplete, and your opinions simply skate over the gaps in that knowledge. The plea for open-mindedness is a plea to recognize that strong opinions are not justified by the current state of knowledge, and if a hypothesis has a 50/50 chance of being true, it should not be dismissed.