The biochemistry of cell communication (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, October 02, 2016, 16:40 (2757 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Many processes are, of course, automatic (e.g. the work of the senses) as I keep acknowledging. But the question is how the information gained is then applied, and the problem for you is that we can only study the physiological manifestations of mental processes. You are aware of this when it comes to human thought, and indeed you criticize neuroscientists who believe brain activity to be the source of mental activity as opposed to being the receiver of it. You even go so far as to acknowledge that the behaviour of brainless micro-organisms appears to be intelligent, and the articles you quote (like this one) often show you that it actually is, but you cling to your prejudices. - DAVID: If we could discover a seat of intelligence in micro-organisms I would agree with you. - And you are the one who accuses me of wanting absolute proof that God exists! Has anyone yet discovered your God's 3.7-billion-year computer programme which offers micro-organisms solutions to every problem they will encounter for the rest of time? - David's comment (re geckos): It looks like a reasoned learned behaviour, just like our black Texas cows under a tree for shade on hot days. - Another lovely article, and a great comment. I agree, these organisms reason things out (invention), and when something works, they stick to it (learned behaviour). Observation tells us that micro-organisms do the same, but you prefer to believe in God's undiscovered computer programme rather than a different type of “receiver”.