Defining sentient cells: Cell receptors (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, April 04, 2018, 11:14 (2425 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Because all cellular reactions to stimuli are shown by scientific research to be a series of molecular reactions. Molecules reacting to molecules don't mentate.

dhw: As a dualist you believe that certain cellular reactions in humans are caused by the activities of an immaterial self which gives instructions to the material self. (Lots of reactions are automatic, but we judge intelligence by those that are not.) Science has never shown that there is an immaterial self giving instructions to molecules. However, what scientific research has shown is that even micro-organisms can solve problems, communicate, cooperate, take decisions. And all these are characteristics of intelligence (though of course on nothing like the scale of human intelligence and self-awareness). You say there is no way we can tell the difference between automaticity and autonomy, so once again, how can you know that cells/cell communities do not mentate? And please don’t change cells to molecules. That is like saying your little fingernail doesn’t mentate.

DAVID: What are single cells but millions of molecules designed to cooperate?

You quote my whole paragraph, and then respond only to the very end! If I say David is intelligent, that does not mean all his molecules are intelligent. We do not know the source of intelligence. Some people think that in humans it’s a soul; others think it’s the pre-frontal cortex. Bacteria (single cells) and cell communities (multicellular organs and organisms) may have the equivalent of either. Now perhaps you will tell us how you can distinguish between automatic and autonomous behaviour, bearing in mind the points made in the paragraph you have quoted.
xxxxx
dhw: I’m sorry you put this under the heading of “cellular intelligence”. Just to clarify:[ …]I am not questioning the obvious fact that molecules contain information and their actions are automatic. Your comment, which concerns the complexity of design, is fair enough, but I’d just like to point out that neither it nor the article can be used to negate the possibility of cellular intelligence.

DAVID: I know you are sorry, but this new research shows how the implanted information is transmitted by molecular 3-D shape. Ask yourself how does shape transmit information. I say by design, and that is the cellular intelligence.

I have explicitly said that your comment re design is “fair enough”, and I have never argued against “cellular intelligence” being the product of design. My point is that transference of information by molecular shape does not in any way negate the possibility of cellular intelligence.