Defining sentient cells: Cell receptors (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, April 06, 2018, 11:30 (2423 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: And so apparently you know that because the 3-D shape of organic molecules carries the information for reactions to create purposeful results, human behaviour is the result of intelligence and bacterial behaviour is the result of divine preprogramming. I don’t follow your logic.

DAVID: Your answer is not to my point. I find it amazing that we can see how God has used 3-D shape to insert information into the conduct of the molecules of life. But it shows us how bacterial behavior can be totally controlled by the informakion transmitted by their molecules and genome.

No it doesn’t. It shows us how behaviour of all organisms is conducted through information conveyed by molecules. It doesn’t show us how organisms take the decisions that lead to the behaviour. This applies as much to humans as to bacteria.

DAVID: No, science can't find the soul, but it can show the degrees of intelligence the complexity of the brain allows.

dhw: According to you as a dualist, intelligence is the province of the soul not the brain, which implements the thoughts of the soul.

DAVID: No, IQ shows us the level of intelligence differs in different brains, based on the quality of complexity the brain offers. The s/s/c can only be as brilliant as the material brain allows.

IQ shows us the level of intelligence in different people. Dualists believe that the s/s/c is the source of intelligence, which survives the death of the brain (NDEs are used as evidence of an afterlife in which the intelligent you are still the intelligent you), whereas materialists believe that the brain is its source. As usual, you are a dualist advocating materialism.

dhw: Science can certainly observe the results of intelligence, as it does when it sets problems for non-human organisms to solve. But you don’t believe that behaviour can show intelligence, as is clear from your next comment:
DAVID: The only real intelligence we know involves the presence of neurons and brains. Purposeful actions can be coded, as demonstrated.

dhw: Purposeful actions can be the result of intelligence. How do you know they are not? If the defining feature of “real intelligence” (whatever that means) is the presence of neurons and brains, then of course a neuron-less, brainless creature can’t be intelligent. If an atheist’s definition of God is “a mythical being that doesn’t exist”, then of course God can’t exist. Not the best of arguments, is it? I would suggest that if any organism shows that it is capable of processing information, communicating that information to others and cooperating with them, solving problems and taking decisions, it has the characteristics of what we normally associate with intelligence (not to be equated with the degree of awareness and self-awareness that characterizes human intelligence). Please tell me what other qualities are essential to your personal definition of intelligence.

DAVID: I agree with you. The organism acting intelligently looks intelligent, but can appear that way by running on intelligent implanted information, a point you cannot deny.

Yes, we could all be robots. But since you agree with me, and presumably accept the criteria I propose for gauging intelligence, you cannot deny the possibility that bacteria are intelligent.