Defining sentient cells: Cell receptors (Introduction)

by David Turell , Friday, April 13, 2018, 16:56 (2416 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The full understanding of the signal pathways described above are not completely researched. When they are fully understood, as they are now in other situations, it will be shown to be a meaningful series of molecular reactions and nothing more: a stimulus with a series of molecular reactions to provide a molecular response, all based on information coded into the molecular 3-D shapes.

dhw: First you tell me: “Your faith in cell intelligence implies that there must be decision making. Research clearly shows decisions are not made….” I refer you to websites in which research discusses cellular decision making. Then you tell me the research is not complete, and when it is, the researchers will confirm your own conclusion that, even though nobody can tell the difference between intelligence and automaticity, you are right. This puts you on an intellectual par with those folk who claim that when research into the nature of the universe is complete, it will prove that there is nothing beyond the material world and so there is no God. Ts, ts.

DAVID: I have only told you what I expect research to show as each series of stimuli result in a molecular series of reactions. From my training in biochemistry in med school this is what I expect to see. Remember intelligently designed responses will look just like active intelligence. And I believe in intelligent design, remember?

dhw: I have a shrewd suspicion that Dawkins’ expectations are also based on his training and research, and that Shapiro’s championship of cellular intelligence is also based on his training and research, and both of these might possibly be of more recent vintage than your own. But your and their qualifications are completely beside the point. Remember active intelligence will look just like intelligently designed responses, and (in a theistic context) intelligent design can refer to the design of active intelligence as well as to the design of intelligently designed responses. And remember also your own wise words, written just three days ago, concerning the scientists who disagree with you: “They have a right to their assumptions which have equal validity to mine.” So do please stop dismissing a hypothesis that has equal validity to your own.

Interesting response. Like Dawkins and Shapiro I've followed biochemistry all my life. I didn't stop thinking after med school. All I said was I expect further research to prove my point, and I agree you, that you Dawkins and Shapiro all have a right to your current position to which I disagree.