Cell complexity: they 'think' through chemical processes (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, May 07, 2018, 14:50 (2393 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: "'Proteins form unfathomably complex networks of chemical reactions that allow cells to communicate and to 'think' -- essentially giving the cell a 'cognitive' ability, or a 'brain'," she said. "It has been a longstanding mystery in science how this cellular 'brain' works.”
“'We could never hope to measure the full complexity of cellular networks -- the networks are simply too large and interconnected and their component proteins are too variable”.

dhw: I shan’t pretend to understand the science, but the implications are crystal clear. The cell has its equivalent of the brain, and “thought” is produced by complex networks of chemical reactions, i.e. in individual cells (bacteria) and in cell communities (the brain). At a single stroke, this article supports two of my hypotheses: 1) cells are intelligent; 2) intelligence emerges from materials. The third stage I have proposed in my “reconciliation” post is that this intelligence may be in the form of energy which can exist independently of the materials. (NB “may be” – I remain uncommitted.) You have agreed to this. Could it be, then, that we are moving towards consensus?

DAVID: I see no agreement between us. The activities follow design patterns. As a result it is obvious they are all automatic chemical reactions, as they all mimic each other. All of the interlocking processes, controlling each other is most likely the way life appears and works.It does not require some sort of 'intelligence' at the controls because all the controls are intelligently designed in the processes themselves. Understanding the science tells me this.

dhw: And I’m sure that “understanding the science” told/tells McClintock, Margulis, Bühler, Shapiro that communication, cognitive ability, a brain equivalent etc. denote intelligence and not automaticity. Thank you for presenting the evidence, even if we disagree on the conclusion!

What we can agree upon is that intelligence is involved. Which makes the case for God stronger.