Bacterial Intelligence? self ID using a virus (General)

by dhw, Friday, April 19, 2019, 10:21 (1827 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Molecular reactions between ligands and sensors are molecular reactions, nothing more.

dhw: Now you are picking on the molecular reactions involved in perception and again totally ignoring the intelligence required to process information and form whatever messages are to be communicated.

DAVID: Not ignoring, but noting you conveniently ignore there are always two possibilities: actual intelligence or simply following intelligent instructions carried in the cells.

I am always reassured when you acknowledge that intelligence is possible. Thank you. Your “intelligent instructions” can ONLY have been personally given ad hoc by your God (dabbling) or handed down by the first cells in a programme to deal with every new circumstance throughout life’s history. You have offered no alternative method. When last challenged on this, you said this hypothesis was not “at the level of belief”. Also reassuring. In your attacks on “actual intelligence”, you continually focus on automatic actions such as material means of perception and communication, ignoring actions that seem to denote intelligence: e.g. processing and use of information, decision-making, cooperation. Since you don’t actually believe that all these actions are dabbled/preprogrammed, I am at a loss as to why you are so opposed to my alternative (which apparently I share with the majority of modern scientists).

dhw:The article focuses on the ability of bacteria to identify kin and non-kin, to form social groups, to communicate with one another, and to use whatever favourable material comes their way. The only luck involved is the arrival of viruses that they can use. [dhw's bold] You even asked me to note that they are always hungry, hunt in groups, and communicate (as we all do) by using material signals. I see the whole picture you asked me to see - hungry bacteria using whatever means they can to satisfy their hunger. In the past you have had your God preprogramming or dabbling all their actions, but do please tell us your new explanation for all the above.

DAVID: I have explained it above: "In this case a virus infects a bacteria, which is its role in life. You imply the bacteria invited the virus in. Not so. The virus attacks the bacteria which cannot kill it, It just happens to help the bacteria in self-identification. What is not luck? No intelligence involved. Many bacteriophages (viruses) do kill bacteria." You imply the bacteria happily gobbled up the 'useful' virus. The virus is the natural enemy of bacteria. In this case neither foe could kill the other, thus a lucky outcome for the bacteria which could then use the virus in a novel way.

I did not imply that the bacteria invited the virus in, and I have agreed that the “luck” consists in the arrival of viruses that the bacteria can use (now bolded). They do so, in your own words, “in a novel way”. I have pointed out that the article focuses on the fact that bacteria can “identify kin and non-kin, form social groups, communicate with one another, and use whatever favourable material comes their way”, all of which are signs of intelligence. You have chosen to ignore all of this by focusing solely on one piece of luck.