slime mold intelligence transfers (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, December 31, 2016, 13:05 (1073 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My definition of organismal 'intelligence', in this case the slime mold, is always the same: the mold runs on intelligent information in its genome it has received. The mold is not innately intelligent just as bacteria are not independently intelligent, but run on received intelligently crafted information.
dhw: I have attempted to define intelligence as “the autonomous ability to absorb and process information, learn, communicate, cooperate, and take decisions based on the information absorbed, processed and learned.” According to my definition, the mold and bacteria are intelligent. The statement that they are not intelligent does not constitute an alternative definition of intelligence. If you accept my definition, please explain how “intelligent” information processes information, learns, communicates and takes decisions.

DAVID: I know you do not like the concept of 'information' as the basis of the genomic controls of life, but there are research scientists who study Shannon information theory and other forms of information theory as directly related to the information the genome carries.

I have no problem with the concept of 'information', but I do not like the conflation of information with whatever it is that controls the use of the information, as epitomized by your next comment and the one that follows, concerning molecular reactions:

DAVID: The process is entirely automatic in its use of the original information. All of the articles I present in the thread of genetic complexity shows this.

Once again, you refuse to define intelligence, and simply repeat your conviction that all cellular processes are automatic (and therefore can only have originated through divine programming or intervention). Of course many of the processes are now automatic, but there are research scientists who study cellular behaviour by setting problems devised in order to test these microorganisms. Some have concluded that cells are intelligent beings according to the definition of intelligence that they and I have proposed. 50/50 is the best I can offer you.

DAVID: You are perfectly correct. From the outside it is either/or, 50/50%. But that does not tell us what is truly happening on the inside. I have pointed out over and over that all that is ever found is molecular reactions when looking inside. Those reactions are guided by information in all the layers of the genome, only a portion of which are fully understood so far. My opinion of 100% is my prediction for the endpoint of full understanding of how living cells work.

And I have pointed out over and over again that scientists can ONLY study molecular reactions, even in their attempts to understand the source of human intelligence. I don’t have a problem with your prediction that your unproven prejudices will be confirmed. Dawkins has the same approach to science. My objection is to his and your dismissal of alternative unproven explanations that do not fit in with his/your prejudices.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum