Immunity system complexity: how T cells are triggered (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, April 04, 2019, 15:03 (2060 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTES: For the first time ever, scientists have imaged the process by which an individual immune system molecule is switched on in response to a signal from the environment, leading to the critical discovery that the activation process involves hundreds of proteins suddenly coming together to form a linked network through a process known as a phase transition."
"This is something that happens inside a living cell during the process of the cell making a decision—signal transduction is what we call it—and it's how cells 'think' with chemical reactions," said study leader Jay Groves. (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: Cells do not think, but automatically react swiftly to all stimuli by their designed reactions of complex organic molecules.

dhw: I can’t find the word “automatic” anywhere in this article, but all thought – including our own – is accompanied by automatic molecular reactions, and indeed materialists claim that all thought is engendered by molecular actions and reactions. […]

DAVID: The bolded section, by me, in the first quote doesn't have to say 'automatic' but that is what the statement describes!

dhw: I have agreed at the very beginning of my response (now bolded) that all thought is accompanied by automatic molecular (re)actions. I’m afraid this really isn’t an answer to any of the points that I have raised, especially with regard to your would-be authoritative statement that “cells do not think”.

DAVID: That is not what Groves said. He specifically says cells thought process is the activation of chemical reactions. He does not discussing preceding thought. That is your pet theory, not supported by his quote.

dhw: He actually says that cells ‘think’ with chemical reactions, but even if he were to say unequivocally as you do that “cells do not think”, I would not regard him as the ultimate authority, especially bearing in mind that the majority of scientists apparently disagree with you. In any case, it is you who constantly point out that there is no way of knowing for sure whether cells think or not (hence your 50/50), just as there is no way of knowing for sure whether human thought is the product or the driver of chemical (re)actions. However, if cells do not think, you can only fall back on your hypothesis of a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for immunity against every disease (although the programme fails to work whenever the organism dies), or your God dabbling whenever a new disease appears. I wonder if Groves would agree with that.

Thank you for returning to the original quote, in which he obviously used the word 'think' allegorically. How do you know how the 'majority of scientists' would interpret his statement? My guess is they would use my interpretation.