The biochemistry of cell communication (Introduction)

by David Turell , Saturday, September 03, 2016, 20:53 (3002 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: As I said, I had to look it up. My Encarta dictionary defines proprioceptor as “any receptor (as in the gut, blood vessels, muscles etc,) that supplies information about the state of the body”. If this is correct, the scientists who believe in cellular intelligence believe that cell communities consciously communicate, interact and cooperate, which could not possibly happen without their acquiring and exchanging information about the state of the body they compose. If this is a wrong definition of “proprioceptive knowledge”, then of course I will withdraw my statement.-Your definition is correct. You are referrrng to cell communities which are whole organs. The organs that have proprioception are muscle groups, arms and legs and torsos giving the brain body positions so the person knows where all parts are dynamically during movement. These are automatic reactions. The cricket batter could not swing at a pitch from the bowler in split-second accuracy without instant information from the entire groups of cell sensors. You are stretching your concept of cell intelligence beyond all credulity
> 
> xxxxxx-i]
> dhw; How does an organism change its “partial” immunity to full immunity? Any mechanism whereby an organism changes itself in order to counter new threats in my view requires some kind of intelligence, whether organic or divine. -It is a recognized concept in biology that individuals with partial immunity when mating will create progeny with better immunity. Interventions not needed.- 
> xxxxxx
 
> dhw: I was disputing your claim that Shapiro's “main” contribution was that organisms can reorganize their DNA, as if this somehow overshadows the importance of his claim that organisms are intelligent. I know you disagree with him.-A major porton of is book is how cells re-write and edit their DNA. His is the 'third way of evolution'. Here I totally agree with him. He claims that shows intelligence. I claim it is built-in.
> 
> xxxxxx -> David's comment: I view this as two automatic molecular responses, as Leifer also seems to in her statement re' mechanism. This is an either/or reaction involving a so far unknown molecular change.
> 
> dhw;I may have missed something, but I can't find the word “mechanism” anywhere. I've found detect, recognize, determine, sensing, interpret….all of which seem to suggest some sort of…how should I put it…intelligence?-Her statement of possible 'mechanism': -"It is not yet clear how these two ligands induce such disparate effects in the same cell by the same receptor. “That's the million-dollar question,” said Leifer. It might be that the ligands recruit different co-receptors, or induce TLR4 to adopt different conformations, she suggested."-Pure molecular biochemical reactions to me. The ligand attaches to one molecular area or another. They will figure it out.-> 
> xxxxxx
> 
> David's comment (re ants): ...the parallelism with human agriculture is amazing. The ant colonies show a group cleverness and one must wonder did the ants work out this arrangement on their own or were they guided? They originally lived on leaves. How did they find a somewhat compliant fungus?
> 
> dhw: I keep referring to the astonishingly intelligent achievements of ants as an analogy to cellular cooperation. At least you have now allowed for the possibility that ant communities may be intelligent, whereas you refuse even to countenance the possibility that cell communities may work in similar fashion.-Ants are whole beings with brains. Cells are not. 
> 
> xxxxxx
> 
> David's comment (under “transcription and DNA structure”): ...the glucocorticoid example is a wonderful description of how the body is coordinated in its feedback controls of various important chemical levels. I again ask, how did evolution develop such a complex stepwise system of intimate controls. Hard to imagine it is trial and error.
> 
> dhw: Indeed, the whole body is a wonderful example of how cell communities communicate and cooperate with one another. How much trial and error there was, we shall never know, but the Tasmanian devil took four generations to perfect its immunity to a new form of cancer. Maybe “this system of intimate controls” took many generations, and many individuals died while others soldiered on in their intelligent pursuit of perfection.-The Tasmanian devils may not have perfect immunity yet, but they will get there. As for trial and error, partial success is still death. Only complete success makes for survival. That is the argument for the irreducible complexity proposal against Darwin's theory.