Cellular intelligence (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, March 03, 2022, 13:50 (994 days ago) @ David Turell

Immune system complexity

DAVID: All immune system cells develop a memorized library to fight again in the future, all automatic.

dhw: You always forget that each new infection will require absorbing and processing new information, cooperating with other cells, and taking decisions. Only when these are successful will they then become part of the memorized library.

DAVID: Immune cells do that automatically from birth, nothing forgotten.

dhw: As I said, you always forget that each volume must have had an origin before it became part of the inherited library.

DAVID: My mention of automaticity of response by immune cells tells exactly that, nothing forgotten.

Your mention of automaticity does NOT tell us how each immune reaction first originated, when cells were called on to process new information and find a solution to the problem it posed.

Cellular intelligence: started in bacteria

QUOTE: "Though there may never be a definitive answer to the age-old question of what exactly bacteria and humans have in common biologically, Jouline has begun a broader search for sensors that have a role in sustaining life. (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: Note my bold. Of course we have biochemical commonality with bacteria. At the start of life many simple biochemical reactions were designed and evolution would carry them forward. That is how evolution works, much to dhw's surprise. Early simple steps lead to later more complex ones built on the early ones.

dhw: I’m more than surprised at your total distortion of my views. In my support of Shapiro’s theory, I have laid enormous emphasis on the intelligence of the original cells, and their pooling of intelligences as cells combine and cooperate in producing increasingly complex organs and organisms. I am delighted by the heading you have given to this post, which could hardly be more supportive of my proposal. Just to set the record straight, however, what DOES surprise me is your theory that every single step from simple to complex was “preparation” for humans and “part of the goal of evolving humans” and their food. This, I think, would surprise a lot of scientists and philosophers, especially when even you accept that the majority of life forms resulting from the process had absolutely no connection with humans and their food.

DAVID: You always forget all life has to eat.

You always forget that not “all life” and food throughout history has been connected with humans, which makes nonsense of your claim that all life was preparation for humans, and part of the goal of evolving (= designing) humans. This sort of statement is the reason why we can never end our discussion of your theory.

DAVID: Today ID views Shapiro as I do:

But this article, as quoted here, does not view Shapiro as you do.

https://mindmatters.ai/2021/11/university-of-chicago-biochemist-all-living-cells-are-co...

QUOTE: "Two questions arise: Is it the intelligence of the cell? That seems inconsistent with how we usually use the word “intelligence.” If we see that a one-celled life form functions with lot of intelligence, perhaps it is more like a book that contains great ideas. Paper doesn’t create ideas; neither, by itself, does protoplasm. Something else is at work.

This where the author does a big slide from bacteria functioning “with a lot of intelligence” to the origin of intelligence generally:

QUOTES: "If the cell itself does not create the intelligence it embodies, what does? Panpsychists argue that all of nature participates in some way in consciousness and humans are the most highly developed example. Theists argue that only a mind outside the universe could create something like human consciousness.
"As we learn more and more about the intricate complexities of nature, perhaps debates over the origin of life, intelligence, consciousness, and similar topics will increasingly be between panpsychists and theists rather than materialists and theists. A whole new environment."

The author is simply raising the problem of the origin of intelligence/consciousness, and is not dismissing the concept of cellular intelligence as you do.

DAVID: In the ID community Shapiro is highly respected as a significant researcher. They obviously reach a different conclusion as to the source of intelligent reactions and responses. I agree with ID.

Exactly. Shapiro’s concept of cellular intelligence (which you flatly refuse even to consider) is used only as a basis for discussing the source of intelligence generally. You and ID-ers apparently agree that the source is your God, although they don’t mention God and you do. As far as I know, Shapiro steers clear of discussing the possible source.