DAVID: We all do not differ except I believe God provided the intelligent instructions.

dhw: Then we are poles apart. Talbott and I are arguing for the autonomous intelligence of cells, not for robots obeying God’s instructions.

DAVID: Talbott is not you. He has only raised the issue of how come cells act so intelligently, without answering the question!! He wants answers. I like to follow him because he so clearly defines what is missing. I fill it with God as designer.

dhw: Talbott argues the case for cellular intelligence. So do I. He doesn’t know the source of that intelligence. Nor do I. And so where do Talbott and I differ?

You don't and neither do I. Only I give an answer. The cells act intelligently and I point to God as designer

DAVID: [..] Grudgingly you offer God as possibly the cause because you have no other answer.

dhw: …maybe the cause of life would be the same cause of cellular intelligence: 1) God, 2) chance, 3) some form of panpsychism – all equally difficult to believe in. That is why some of us are agnostics. I may have said this before.

DAVID: I think chance is an unreasonable theory, considering the complexity of biochemical life. As for panpsychism, it is a blown up concept only because we do have the mental capacity to invent all sorts of idiotic suggestions. Minds at invention play. Why not try on multiverses for size?

dhw: You said I had no other answer. I gave you two other answers. I also told you that I find both of them difficult to believe in, so why do you have to tell me that they are difficult to believe in? I find your own theory equally difficult to believe in, which is why I am an agnostic. This discussion is a cul de sac.

Agreed.

dhw: Then we are poles apart. Talbott and I are arguing for the autonomous intelligence of cells, not for robots obeying God’s instructions.

DAVID: Talbott is not you. He has only raised the issue of how come cells act so intelligently, without answering the question!! He wants answers. I like to follow him because he so clearly defines what is missing. I fill it with God as designer.

Talbott argues the case for cellular intelligence. So do I. He doesn’t know the source of that intelligence. Nor do I. And so where do Talbott and I differ?

DAVID: [..] Grudgingly you offer God as possibly the cause because you have no other answer.

dhw: …maybe the cause of life would be the same cause of cellular intelligence: 1) God, 2) chance, 3) some form of panpsychism – all equally difficult to believe in. That is why some of us are agnostics. I may have said this before.

DAVID: I think chance is an unreasonable theory, considering the complexity of biochemical life. As for panpsychism, it is a blown up concept only because we do have the mental capacity to invent all sorts of idiotic suggestions. Minds at invention play. Why not try on multiverses for size?

You said I had no other answer. I gave you two other answers. I also told you that I find both of them difficult to believe in, so why do you have to tell me that they are difficult to believe in? I find your own theory equally difficult to believe in, which is why I am an agnostic. This discussion is a cul de sac.

DAVID: Talbott and I certainly agree bacteria act intelligently and he wonders where that intelligence came from, without answering. He does not support you by leaving the issue as an open question.

dhw: Great to hear that you now agree that bacteria act intelligently, instead of your previous belief that they merely obeyed your God’s instructions, but I’m surprised you’ve forgotten that I also agree with Talbott that bacteria are intelligent, and you’ve also forgotten that I too leave open the issue of where the intelligence came from, though I do add that it may have come from God. Please tell me where Talbott and I differ.

DAVID: We all do not differ except I believe God provided the intelligent instructions.

dhw: Then we are poles apart. Talbott and I are arguing for the autonomous intelligence of cells, not for robots obeying God’s instructions.

Talbott is not you. He has only raised the issue of how come cells act so intelligently, without answering the question!! He wants answers. I like to follow him because he so clearly defines what is missing. I fill it with God as designer.

David: [..] Grudgingly you offer God as possibly the cause because you have no other answer.

dhw: …maybe the cause of life would be the same cause of cellular intelligence: 1) God, 2) chance, 3) some form of panpsychism – all equally difficult to believe in. That is why some of us are agnostics. I may have said this before.

DAVID: I know of your struggles. Forget (1) God. Just realize a designer is required. That is how I left agnosticism.

dhw: You moaned that I had no other answer. You had forgotten the other two answers.

DAVID: I ignored chance and panpsychism as inventions not worth answering.

dhw: Not much point in telling me I have no other answer and then ignoring the other answers!

I think chance is an unreasonable theory, considering the complexity of biochemical life. As for panpsychism, it is a blown up concept only because we do have the mental capacity to invent all sorts of idiotic suggestions. Minds at invention play. Why not try on multiverses for size?

dhw: Great to hear that you now agree that bacteria act intelligently, instead of your previous belief that they merely obeyed your God’s instructions, but I’m surprised you’ve forgotten that I also agree with Talbott that bacteria are intelligent, and you’ve also forgotten that I too leave open the issue of where the intelligence came from, though I do add that it may have come from God. Please tell me where Talbott and I differ.

DAVID: We all do not differ except I believe God provided the intelligent instructions.

Then we are poles apart. Talbott and I are arguing for the autonomous intelligence of cells, not for robots obeying God’s instructions.

David: [..] Grudgingly you offer God as possibly the cause because you have no other answer.

dhw: …maybe the cause of life would be the same cause of cellular intelligence: 1) God, 2) chance, 3) some form of panpsychism – all equally difficult to believe in. That is why some of us are agnostics. I may have said this before.

DAVID: I know of your struggles. Forget (1) God. Just realize a designer is required. That is how I left agnosticism.

dhw: You moaned that I had no other answer. You had forgotten the other two answers.

DAVID: I ignored chance and panpsychism as inventions not worth answering.

Not much point in telling me I have no other answer and then ignoring the other answers!

DAVID: Talbott and I certainly agree bacteria act intelligently and he wonders where that intelligence came from, without answering. He does not support you by leaving the issue as an open question.

dhw: Great to hear that you now agree that bacteria act intelligently, instead of your previous belief that they merely obeyed your God’s instructions, but I’m surprised you’ve forgotten that I also agree with Talbott that bacteria are intelligent, and you’ve also forgotten that I too leave open the issue of where the intelligence came from, though I do add that it may have come from God. Please tell me where Talbott and I differ.

We all do not differ except I believe God provided the intelligent instructions

DAVID: (from “error corrections III") All of this comes from studying rare genetic deficiency diseases and finds obscure God's editing mechanisms, showing He recognized/anticipated genetic errors as well as metabolic errors.

dhw: Or just possibly all of this shows how intelligent cells work out how to handle errors in the system.

DAVID: With no explanation from you where the intelligence came from. Grudgingly you offer God as possibly the cause because you have no other answer.

dhw: Thank you for again acknowledging the possibility that cells are intelligent. And no, in common with every other human being on this planet, I do not know where life itself came from, let alone what might be the cause of cellular intelligence, if the theory is true. But we know life exists, and so maybe the cause of life would be the same cause of cellular intelligence: 1) God, 2) chance, 3) some form of panpsychism – all equally difficult to believe in. That is why some of us are agnostics. I may have said this before.

DAVID: I know of your struggles. Forget (1) God. Just realize a designer is required. That is how I left agnosticism.

dhw: You moaned that I had no other answer. You had forgotten the other two answers.

I ignored chance and panpsychism as inventions not worth answering.

DAVID: Bacteria are free to adapt and simply react but humans can invent immaterial plans. Still a non-comparable comparison.

dhw: You are merely repeating what Talbott and I keep telling you. We are NOT comparing the levels of intelligence. We are pointing out that bacteria are intelligent, and it is a perfectly logical sequence that just as multicellularity led to increasing physical complexity, it also led to increasing levels of intelligence.

DAVID: Talbott and I certainly agree bacteria act intelligently and he wonders where that intelligence came from, without answering. He does not support you by leaving the issue as an open question.

Great to hear that you now agree that bacteria act intelligently, instead of your previous belief that they merely obeyed your God’s instructions, but I’m surprised you’ve forgotten that I also agree with Talbott that bacteria are intelligent, and you’ve also forgotten that I too leave open the issue of where the intelligence came from, though I do add that it may have come from God. Please tell me where Talbott and I differ.

DAVID: (from “error corrections III") All of this comes from studying rare genetic deficiency diseases and finds obscure God's editing mechanisms, showing He recognized/anticipated genetic errors as well as metabolic errors.

dhw: Or just possibly all of this shows how intelligent cells work out how to handle errors in the system.

DAVID: With no explanation from you where the intelligence came from. Grudgingly you offer God as possibly the cause because you have no other answer.

dhw: Thank you for again acknowledging the possibility that cells are intelligent. And no, in common with every other human being on this planet, I do not know where life itself came from, let alone what might be the cause of cellular intelligence, if the theory is true. But we know life exists, and so maybe the cause of life would be the same cause of cellular intelligence: 1) God, 2) chance, 3) some form of panpsychism – all equally difficult to believe in. That is why some of us are agnostics. I may have said this before.

DAVID: I know of your struggles. Forget (1) God. Just realize a designer is required. That is how I left agnosticism.

You moaned that I had no other answer. You had forgotten the other two answers.

dhw: Neither I nor Talbott equates bacterial intelligence with human intelligence, and you know it. Talbott: "It would, of course, be a fatal error to collapse all distinctions and talk about those early cells in the same way we talk about conscious human cognition and behavior". You agree that bacteria are autonomous organisms responsible for their own decisions. So are we, and it makes sense to assume that the same applies to all organisms in between.

DAVID: Bacteria are free to adapt and simply react but humans can invent immaterial plans. Still a non-comparable comparison.

dhw: You are merely repeating what Talbott and I keep telling you. We are NOT comparing the levels of intelligence. We are pointing out that bacteria are intelligent, and it is a perfectly logical sequence that just as multicellularity led to increasing physical complexity, it also led to increasing levels of intelligence.

Talbott an I certainly agree bacteria act intelligently and he wonders where that intelligence came from, without answering. He does not support you by leaving the issue as an open question.

DAVID: We each interpret Talbott differently. He is questioning the source of that cellular intelligence without answering.

dhw: Originally you tried to make out that “Talbott is telling us evolution has produced us as direct decedent relatives of bacteria” and you ignored the fact that he was promoting the idea of cellular intelligence. The fact that nobody knows the source does not alter the fact that he supports the concept of cellular intelligence, so thank you again for bringing this supportive article to our attention.

DAVID: Talbott raised the question and does not give an answer.

dhw: True. That has nothing to do with the question of whether cells are or are not intelligent. Thank you again for quoting an article which so clearly supports the concept of cellular intelligence.

You are welcome.

QUOTE: "Sifers and others dug deeper into how cells dispose of misfolded proteins. They discovered that cells shuttle defective proteins from their place of synthesis, the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), to the cytosol, where they are degraded in a cellular structure called a proteasome. Key to this process is to tag the proteins for destruction."

DAVID: (from “error corrections III") All of this comes from studying rare genetic deficiency diseases and finds obscure God's editing mechanisms, showing He recognized/anticipated genetic errors as well as metabolic errors.

dhw: Or just possibly all of this shows how intelligent cells work out how to handle errors in the system.

DAVID: With no explanation from you where the intelligence came from. Grudgingly you offer God as possibly the cause because you have no other answer.

dhw: Thank you for again acknowledging the possibility that cells are intelligent. And no, in common with every other human being on this planet, I do not know where life itself came from, let alone what might be the cause of cellular intelligence, if the theory is true. But we know life exists, and so maybe the cause of life would be the same cause of cellular intelligence: 1) God, 2) chance, 3) some form of panpsychism – all equally difficult to believe in. That is why some of us are agnostics. I may have said this before.

I know of your struggles. Forget (1) God. Just realize a designer is required. That is how I left agnosticism.

DAVID: Bacteria are free to adapt and simply react but humans can invent immaterial plans. Still a non-comparable comparison.

You are merely repeating what Talbott and I keep telling you. We are NOT comparing the levels of intelligence. We are pointing out that bacteria are intelligent, and it is a perfectly logical sequence that just as multicellularity led to increasing physical complexity, it also led to increasing levels of intelligence.

DAVID: We each interpret Talbott differently. He is questioning the source of that cellular intelligence without answering.

dhw: Originally you tried to make out that “Talbott is telling us evolution has produced us as direct decedent relatives of bacteria” and you ignored the fact that he was promoting the idea of cellular intelligence. The fact that nobody knows the source does not alter the fact that he supports the concept of cellular intelligence, so thank you again for bringing this supportive article to our attention.

DAVID: Talbott raised the question and does not give an answer.

True. That has nothing to do with the question of whether cells are or are not intelligent. Thank you again for quoting an article which so clearly supports the concept of cellular intelligence.

QUOTE: "Sifers and others dug deeper into how cells dispose of misfolded proteins. They discovered that cells shuttle defective proteins from their place of synthesis, the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), to the cytosol, where they are degraded in a cellular structure called a proteasome. Key to this process is to tag the proteins for destruction."

DAVID: (from “error corrections III") All of this comes from studying rare genetic deficiency diseases and finds obscure God's editing mechanisms, showing He recognized/anticipated genetic errors as well as metabolic errors.

dhw: Or just possibly all of this shows how intelligent cells work out how to handle errors in the system.

DAVID: With no explanation from you where the intelligence came from. Grudgingly you offer God as possibly the cause because you have no other answer.

Thank you for again acknowledging the possibility that cells are intelligent. And no, in common with every other human being on this planet, I do not know where life itself came from, let alone what might be the cause of cellular intelligence, if the theory is true. But we know life exists, and so maybe the cause of life would be the same cause of cellular intelligence: 1) God, 2) chance, 3) some form of panpsychism – all equally difficult to believe in.That is why some of us are agnostics. I may have said this before.

DAVID: You cannot equate our intellectual free will, which is immaterial, with bacterial reactions.

dhw: Neither I nor Talbott equates bacterial intelligence with human intelligence, and you know it. Talbott: "It would, of course, be a fatal error to collapse all distinctions and talk about those early cells in the same way we talk about conscious human cognition and behavior". You agree that bacteria are autonomous organisms responsible for their own decisions. So are we, and it makes sense to assume that the same applies to all organisms in between.

Bacteria are free to adapt and simply react but humans can invent immaterial plans. Still a non-comparable comparison.

dhw: The autonomous intelligence and responsibility of bacteria may indeed have been designed by your God, and it makes no sense to assume that it would not have been passed on to the single cells that formed communities. It is not a proven theory, but your opposition to it is based on an assumption, not on any facts.

DAVID: Not an assumption, but a firm belief in God, the designer.

dhw: No problem. You can agree that all organisms have their own form of intelligence, and firmly believe that God designed the original form with its infinite potential for variation and complexification

And all following forms.

Talbott: file:///C:/Users/pacemaker/Desktop/Stephen%20L.%20Talbott.html

QUOTE: "When, then, we reflect upon the incredibly complex, end-directed tasks expertly carried out by vast collections of molecules even in the simplest and most primitive cells,it is natural to call to mind the eons of evolutionary transformation that have led from single cells to our own experience as conscious and willful agents pursuing our own meaningful tasks. Does the human outcome illuminate primordial origins?

dhw: […] In other words, ALL levels of intelligence are descended from bacterial intelligence.

DAVID: Once again my position is God designed all species and what appears to be cell intelligence is a function of cells following God's intelligent instructions as they act and react.

dhw: I know your position. Thank you for quoting Talbott’s support of the concept of cellular intelligence.

DAVID: We each interpret Talbott differently. He is questioning the source of that cellular intelligence without answering.

dhw: Originally you tried to make out that “Talbott is telling us evolution has produced us as direct decedent relatives of bacteria” and you ignored the fact that he was promoting the idea of cellular intelligence. The fact that nobody knows the source does not alter the fact that he supports the concept of cellular intelligence, so thank you again for bringing this supportive article to our attention.

Talbott raised the question and does not give an answer

X
QUOTE (from “error corrections III"): "Sifers and others dug deeper into how cells dispose of misfolded proteins. They discovered that cells shuttle defective proteins from their place of synthesis, the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), to the cytosol, where they are degraded in a cellular structure called a proteasome. Key to this process is to tag the proteins for destruction."

DAVID: All of this comes from studying rare genetic deficiency diseases and finds obscure God's editing mechanisms, showing He recognized/anticipated genetic errors as well as metabolic errors.

dhw: Or just possibly all of this shows how intelligent cells work out how to handle errors in the system.

With no explanation from you where the intelligence came from. Grudgingly you offer God as possibly the cause because you have no other answer.

dhw: Yes of course, if they are free-living they “take responsibility” for their adaptations. That is what autonomy means.

DAVID: Our brain with free will plays no role in this particular discussion.

dhw: Of course it does. We are descended from bacteria, remember? And if bacteria are free-living and responsible for their own decisions, and we are free-living and responsible for our own decisions, it is not unreasonable to assume that every organism in between was also free-living and responsible for its own decisions. See Talbott.

DAVID: You cannot equate our intellectual free will, which is immaterial, with bacterial reactions.

Neither I nor Talbott equates bacterial intelligence with human intelligence, and you know it. Talbott: "It would, of course, be a fatal error to collapse all distinctions and talk about those early cells in the same way we talk about conscious human cognition and behavior". You agree that bacteria are autonomous organisms responsible for their own decisions. So are we, and it makes sense to assume that the same applies to all organisms in between.

dhw: The autonomous intelligence and responsibility of bacteria may indeed have been designed by your God, and it makes no sense to assume that it would not have been passed on to the single cells that formed communities. It is not a proven theory, but your opposition to it is based on an assumption, not on any facts.

DAVID: Not an assumption, but a firm belief in God, the designer.

No problem. You can agree that all organisms have their own form of intelligence, and firmly believe that God designed the original form with its infinite potential for variation and complexification

Talbott: file:///C:/Users/pacemaker/Desktop/Stephen%20L.%20Talbott.html

QUOTE: "When, then, we reflect upon the incredibly complex, end-directed tasks expertly carried out by vast collections of molecules even in the simplest and most primitive cells,it is natural to call to mind the eons of evolutionary transformation that have led from single cells to our own experience as conscious and willful agents pursuing our own meaningful tasks. Does the human outcome illuminate primordial origins?

dhw: […] In other words, ALL levels of intelligence are descended from bacterial intelligence.

DAVID: Once again my position is God designed all species and what appears to be cell intelligence is a function of cells following God's intelligent instructions as they act and react.

dhw: I know your position. Thank you for quoting Talbott’s support of the concept of cellular intelligence.

DAVID: We each interpret Talbott differently. He is questioning the source of that cellular intelligence without answering.

Originally you tried to make out that “Talbott is telling us evolution has produced us as direct decedent relatives of bacteria” and you ignored the fact that he was promoting the idea of cellular intelligence. The fact that nobody knows the source does not alter the fact that he supports the concept of cellular intelligence, so thank you again for bringing this supportive article to our attention.
X
QUOTE (from “error corrections III"): "Sifers and others dug deeper into how cells dispose of misfolded proteins. They discovered that cells shuttle defective proteins from their place of synthesis, the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), to the cytosol, where they are degraded in a cellular structure called a proteasome. Key to this process is to tag the proteins for destruction."

DAVID: All of this comes from studying rare genetic deficiency diseases and finds obscure God's editing mechanisms, showing He recognized/anticipated genetic errors as well as metabolic errors.

Or just possibly all of this shows how intelligent cells work out how to handle errors in the system.

DAVID: No concession: I've always said as free-living they had to be able to take full responsibility for their adaptations, as from Shapiro.

dhw: Yes of course, if they are free-living they “take responsibility” for their adaptations. That is what autonomy means.

DAVID: Our brain with free will plays no role in this particular discussion.

dhw: Of course it does. We are descended from bacteria, remember? And if bacteria are free-living and responsible for their own decisions, and we are free-living and responsible for our own decisions, it is not unreasonable to assume that every organism in between was also free-living and responsible for its own decisions. See Talbott.

You cannot equate our intellectual free will, which is immaterial, with bacterial reactions.
***

dhw: Yes indeed, that is the whole point! Free-living, autonomously intelligent bacteria form communities, and that starts the whole process of multicellularity: free-living, autonomously intelligent cells pool their intelligence, thus branching out into all the species that have formed the higgledy-piggledy history of life on Earth.

DAVID: Again I view it as designed by God, well beyond the capacity of cell committees.

dhw: We know your beliefs. The autonomous intelligence and responsibility of bacteria may indeed have been designed by your God, and it makes no sense to assume that it would not have been passed on to the single cells that formed communities. It is not a proven theory, but your opposition to it is based on an assumption, not on any facts.

Not an assumption, but a firm belief in God, the designer.

Read Talbott: file:///C:/Users/pacemaker/Desktop/Stephen%20L.%20Talbott.html

QUOTE: "When, then, we reflect upon the incredibly complex, end-directed tasks expertly carried out by vast collections of molecules even in the simplest and most primitive cells, it is natural to call to mind the eons of evolutionary transformation that have led from single cells to our own experience as conscious and willful agents pursuing our own meaningful tasks. Does the human outcome illuminate primordial origins?

"It would, of course, be a fatal error to collapse all distinctions and talk about those early cells in the same way we talk about conscious human cognition and behavior. But the error would be equally egregious if we simply ignored the evident relation and historical continuity between the earliest forms of life and ourselves." (dhw's bolds)

DAVID: Talbott is telling us evolution has produced us as direct decedent relatives of bacteria.

dhw: If we are direct descendant relatives of bacteria, so is every other life form that ever lived. That is the theory of common descent, and I really don’t think we need Talbott to tell us that. The quotes could hardly be clearer: he is pointing out the fact that although cellular intelligence is not to be compared to our human intelligence, nevertheless single cells are intelligent! In other words, ALL levels of intelligence are descended from bacterial intelligence.

DAVID: Once again my position is God designed all species and what appears to be cell intelligence is a function of cells following God's intelligent instructions as they act and react.

dhw: I know your position. Thank you for quoting Talbott’s support of the concept of cellular intelligence.

We each interpret Talbott differently. He is questioning the source of that cellular intelligence without answering.

dhw: Thank you for conceding that single-celled bacteria are “free-living”. This is real progress.

DAVID: No concession: I've always said as free-living they had to be able to take full responsibility for their adaptations, as from Shapiro.

dhw: Yes of course, if they are free-living they “take responsibility” for their adaptations. That is what autonomy means. And if (theistic version) your God gave bacteria the freedom to do their own adapting, why on earth do you think that a community of cells could not have been given the same freedom and responsibility – culminating in human free will?

DAVID: Our brain with free will plays no role in this particular discussion.

Of course it does. We are descended from bacteria, remember? And if bacteria are free-living and responsible for their own decisions, and we are free-living and responsible for our own decisions, it is not unreasonable to assume that every organism in between was also free-living and responsible for its own decisions. See Talbott.

DAVID: The free-living aspect of bacteria REQUIRES the adaptability they have.

All organisms REQUIRE adaptability, and if they haven’t got it they die! If the very first organisms had the responsibility for their own adaptations, why do you think their descendants don’t have it?

DAVID: Multicellularity involves a completely different set of considerations which involves the basic cooperation of all cells in their various organs run by the information in each modified DNA to handle all the myriad of functionality.

Of course a community of cells requires cooperation, and of course they will be run by information that can handle all the different functions, but if singled celled bacteria can process information and send it to their molecules, so can multi-celled organisms. Same process, but on an ever increasing scale.

DAVID: Bacterial mats do that to a degree, which is probably a step to multicellularity

dhw: Yes indeed, that is the whole point! Free-living, autonomously intelligent bacteria form communities, and that starts the whole process of multicellularity: free-living, autonomously intelligent cells pool their intelligence, thus branching out into all the species that have formed the higgledy-piggledy history of life on Earth.

DAVID: Again I view it as designed by God, well beyond the capacity of cell committees.

We know your beliefs. The autonomous intelligence and responsibility of bacteria may indeed have been designed by your God, and it makes no sense to assume that it would not have been passed on to the single cells that formed communities. It is not a proven theory, but your opposition to it is based on an assumption, not on any facts.

Read Talbott: file:///C:/Users/pacemaker/Desktop/Stephen%20L.%20Talbott.html

QUOTE: "When, then, we reflect upon the incredibly complex, end-directed tasks expertly carried out by vast collections of molecules even in the simplest and most primitive cells, it is natural to call to mind the eons of evolutionary transformation that have led from single cells to our own experience as conscious and willful agents pursuing our own meaningful tasks. Does the human outcome illuminate primordial origins?

"It would, of course, be a fatal error to collapse all distinctions and talk about those early cells in the same way we talk about conscious human cognition and behavior. But the error would be equally egregious if we simply ignored the evident relation and historical continuity between the earliest forms of life and ourselves." (dhw's bolds)

DAVID: Talbott is telling us evolution has produced us as direct decedent relatives of bacteria.

dhw: If we are direct descendant relatives of bacteria, so is every other life form that ever lived. That is the theory of common descent, and I really don’t think we need Talbott to tell us that. The quotes could hardly be clearer: he is pointing out the fact that although cellular intelligence is not to be compared to our human intelligence, nevertheless single cells are intelligent! In other words, ALL levels of intelligence are descended from bacterial intelligence.

DAVID: Once again my position is God designed all species and what appears to be cell intelligence is a function of cells following God's intelligent instructions as they act and react.

I know your position. Thank you for quoting Talbott’s support of the concept of cellular intelligence.

DAVID: You cannot disconnect the stepwise development evolving humans from bacteria as one process.
Read Talbott: file:///C:/Users/pacemaker/Desktop/Stephen%20L.%20Talbott.html

QUOTE: "When, then, we reflect upon the incredibly complex, end-directed tasks expertly carried out by vast collections of molecules even in the simplest and most primitive cells, it is natural to call to mind the eons of evolutionary transformation that have led from single cells to our own experience as conscious and willful agents pursuing our own meaningful tasks. Does the human outcome illuminate primordial origins?
"It would, of course, be a fatal error to collapse all distinctions and talk about those early cells in the same way we talk about conscious human cognition and behavior. But the error would be equally egregious if we simply ignored the evident relation and historical continuity between the earliest forms of life and ourselves." (dhw's bolds)

DAVID: Talbott is telling us evolution has produced us as direct decedent relatives of bacteria. And you get all confused by the old and current bushes and what they mean.

dhw: If we are direct descendant relatives of bacteria, so is every other life form that ever lived. That is the theory of common descent, and I really don’t think we need Talbott to tell us that. The quotes could hardly be clearer: he is pointing out the fact that although cellular intelligence is not to be compared to our human intelligence, nevertheless single cells are intelligent! In other words, ALL levels of intelligence are descended from bacterial intelligence. The confusion over old and current bushes is entirely yours, because you insist your God designed all the extinct twigs as part of the goal of evolving (directly designing) us and our bush, although there is no direct connection. Thank you for providing an article in support of "cellular intelligence", to which I have transferred it.

Once again my position is God designed all species and what appears to be cell intelligence is a function of cells following God's intelligent instructions as they act and react.

DAVID: The problem is the evidence is in free-living bacteria who are responsible for their own survival and must have that ability. In multicellular organisms most cells are simply cogs in parts of constructive activities.

dhw: Thank you for conceding that single-celled bacteria are “free-living”. This is real progress.

DAVID: No concession: I've always said as free-living they had to be able to take full responsibility for their adaptations, as from Shapiro.

dhw: Yes of course, if they are free-living they “take responsibility” for their adaptations. That is what autonomy means. And if (theistic version) your God gave bacteria the freedom to do their own adapting, why on earth do you think that a community of cells could not have been given the same freedom and responsibility – culminating in human free will?

Our brain with free will plays no role in this particular discussion. The free-living aspect of bacteria REQUIRES the adaptability the have. Multicellularity involves a completely different set of considerations which involves the basic cooperation of all cells in their various organs run by the information in each modified DNA to handle all the myriad of functionality.

DAVID: Bacterial mats do that to a degree, which is probably a step to multicellularity

dhw: Yes indeed, that is the whole point! Free-living, autonomously intelligent bacteria form communities, and that starts the whole process of multicellularity: free-living, autonomously intelligent cells pool their intelligence, thus brancheing out into all the species that have formed the higgledy-piggledy history of life on Earth.

Again I view it as designed by God, well beyond the capacity of cell committees

Under “information flow”:

DAVID: Each cell nucleus is in automatic control of the factory output using its information content.

dhw: It sounds just like an ant colony, with each ant running round performing its particular duty. I agree that the messengers act automatically – their job is to obey. The question is where the instructions come from, and the article suggests that the intelligence lies within the nucleus of the cell. That would also be the source of the autonomous, free-living intelligence of the single bacterium.

DAVID: All of which is supplied by God who created life.

dhw: I have always accepted the possibility that your God created life and supplied cellular intelligence.

I know.

QUOTE: "When, then, we reflect upon the incredibly complex, end-directed tasks expertly carried out by vast collections of molecules even in the simplest and most primitive cells, it is natural to call to mind the eons of evolutionary transformation that have led from single cells to our own experience as conscious and willful agents pursuing our own meaningful tasks. Does the human outcome illuminate primordial origins?
"It would, of course, be a fatal error to collapse all distinctions and talk about those early cells in the same way we talk about conscious human cognition and behavior. But the error would be equally egregious if we simply ignored the evident relation and historical continuity between the earliest forms of life and ourselves." (dhw's bolds)

DAVID: Talbott is telling us evolution has produced us as direct decedent relatives of bacteria. And you get all confused by the old and current bushes and what they mean.

If we are direct descendant relatives of bacteria, so is every other life form that ever lived. That is the theory of common descent, and I really don’t think we need Talbott to tell us that. The quotes could hardly be clearer: he is pointing out the fact that although cellular intelligence is not to be compared to our human intelligence, nevertheless single cells are intelligent! In other words, ALL levels of intelligence are descended from bacterial intelligence. The confusion over old and current bushes is entirely yours, because you insist your God designed all the extinct twigs as part of the goal of evolving (directly designing) us and our bush, although there is no direct connection. Thank you for providing an article in support of "cellular intelligence", to which I have transferred it.

dhw: Why “trapped”? The cells have formed a network of controls. Your last sentence is a complete non sequitur!

DAVID: Trapped as under tight controls, recognizing errors can occur.

Hardly trapped then if some cells can go off and do their own thing!

DAVID: I don't reject that cells act intelligently.

dhw: You usually add that they do so with guidelines from your God. I apologize for the misunderstanding and welcome you to the happy group of us who accept the feasibility of autonomous cellular intelligence.

DAVID: You know full well they act intelligently following intelligent instructions.

In that case they don’t act intelligently – they follow intelligent instructions. What a shame! But it was fun while it lasted.

DAVID: The problem is the evidence is in free-living bacteria who are responsible for their own survival and must have that ability. In multicellular organisms most cells are simply cogs in parts of constructive activities.

dhw: Thank you for conceding that single-celled bacteria are “free-living”. This is real progress.

DAVID: No concession: I've always said as free-living they had to be able to take full responsibility for their adaptations, as from Shapiro.

Yes of course, if they are free-living they “take responsibility” for their adaptations. That is what autonomy means. And if (theistic version) your God gave bacteria the freedom to do their own adapting, why on earth do you think that a community of cells could not have been given the same freedom and responsibility – culminating in human free will?

DAVID: Bacterial mats do that to a degree, which is probably a step to multicellularity

Yes indeed, that is the whole point! Free-living, autonomously intelligent bacteria form communities, and that starts the whole process of multicellularity: free-living, autonomously intelligent cells pool their intelligence, thus brancheing out into all the species that have formed the higgledy-piggledy history of life on Earth.

DAVID: And I counter God did it.

God did what? If he gave single cells their autonomy, then it is not unreasonable to assume that a community/communities of single cells will also function autonomously.

Under “information flow”:

DAVID: Each cell nucleus is in automatic control of the factory output using its information content.

dhw: It sounds just like an ant colony, with each ant running round performing its particular duty. I agree that the messengers act automatically – their job is to obey. The question is where the instructions come from, and the article suggests that the intelligence lies within the nucleus of the cell. That would also be the source of the autonomous, free-living intelligence of the single bacterium.

DAVID: All of which is supplied by God who created life.

I have always accepted the possibility that your God created life and supplied cellular intelligence.

DAVID: The cells are trapped in a network of controls. Cell committees don't speciate.

dhw: Why “trapped”? The cells have formed a network of controls. Your last sentence is a complete non sequitur!

Trapped as under tight controls, recognizing errors can occur.

DAVID: I don't reject that cells act intelligently.

dhw: You usually add that they do so with guidelines from your God. I apologize for the misunderstanding and welcome you to the happy group of us who accept the feasibility of autonomous cellular intelligence.

You know full well they act intelligently following intelligent instructions.

DAVID: The problem is the evidence is in free-living bacteria who are responsible for their own survival and must have that ability. In multicellular organisms most cells are simply cogs in parts of constructive activities.

dhw: Thank you for conceding that single-celled bacteria are “free-living”. This is real progress.

No concession: I've always said as free-living they had to be able to take full responsibility for their adaptations, as from Shapiro.

dhw: If free-living organisms join together to cooperate, they will need to reach consensus on what action they take. They too are responsible for their survival, which is no doubt why they joined together. Yes of course “most of the cells” become cogs! But the constructive activities must be directed. So if a single-celled organism can provide its own directions, why do you think it's impossible for a colony of cooperating single-celled organisms to produce its own directions?

Bacterial mats do that to a degree, which is probably a step to multicellularity

DAVID: The only way change occurs is change in the genome of germ cells. Bacteria reproduce by simply splitting, which makes them in full control of any change, and so far Lenski's E. coli are still E. coli after enormous numbers of generations.

dhw: Yes, the genome has to change if there is to be a new species. That is why we talk of new genes and of restructuring old genes. And yes, single-celled bacteria do very nicely, but at some time some free-living bacteria decided to form communities, and those are the ones that branched out into all the species that have formed the higgledy-piggledy history of life on Earth.

And I counter God did it.

Under “information flow”:
QUOTE: Each human cell has an information network like a subway system underpinning the function of one of the world's major cities. Instead of human couriers, within our cells, messenger RNAs (mRNAs) carry information. Thousands of mRNAs emerge from the cell's nucleus with instructions for cellular functions and disappear into the cytoplasm when their duties are fulfilled.

DAVID: Amazing. Messenger RNA can be watched and followed. Each cell nucleus is in automatic control of the factory output using its information content.

dhw: It sounds just like an ant colony, with each ant running round performing its particular duty. I agree that the messengers act automatically – their job is to obey. The question is where the instructions come from, and the article suggests that the intelligence lies within the nucleus of the cell. That would also be the source of the autonomous, free-living intelligence of the single bacterium.

All of which is supplied by God who created life.

dhw: What else is multicellularity if it is not single cells cooperating? The increasing complexity would be the result of millions and millions of years during which cells increased their range of activity and knowledge as they met with new conditions.

DAVID: The cooperation in multicellularity is each cell in each organ working for a common purpose, each organ working with the other organs for common purpose.

Correct. You’ve summed it up beautifully.

DAVID: The cells are trapped in a network of controls. Cell committees don't speciate.

Why “trapped”? The cells have formed a network of controls. Your last sentence is a complete non sequitur!
[…]
DAVID: There is no question God gave organisms the ability to adapt to changing conditions, but that does not mean they could self-speciate.

dhw: Do you agree, then, that adaptation is an autonomous mechanism, or do you think your God pre-planned every adaptation 3.8 billion years ago, or stepped in to dabble each one? You are quite right that adaptation is not the same as speciation, but it is sometimes difficult to draw a line between the two (e.g. pre-whales adapting to marine life, with legs giving way to fins). The theory therefore remains feasible: if there is a mechanism for cells autonomously restructuring themselves to make minor changes, maybe they were able to make major changes as well.

DAVID: You can have that 'maybe' approach. I think only a designer can speciate

“Maybe” applies to all theories, including your divine preprogramming or dabbling of every life form and natural wonder in the history of life on Earth. Feasibility is the best we can do. Thank you for the maybe.

DAVID: I don't know how God ran the process of evolution, as you note, but my thoughts are not unreasonable.

dhw: What is unreasonable is (a) your total rejection of what you agree is a 50/50 chance (cellular intelligence), and (b) your whole anthropocentric theory of evolution (= direct design) as dissected on various threads.

DAVID: I don't reject that cells act intelligently.

You usually add that they do so with guidelines from your God. I apologize for the misunderstanding and welcome you to the happy group of us who accept the feasibility of autonomous cellular intelligence.

DAVID: Shapiro tells us bacteria can edit their genome. Great example. Which I think is a God=given attribute God gave them.

dhw: Wonderful. If a single cell can edit its genome, it makes perfect sense to assume that lots of cells can edit their genome. Hence the birth of the intelligent cell community and a simple explanation for how evolution works: every cell community edits its genome in order to adapt to or exploit changing conditions, as exemplified by single-celled bacteria.

DAVID: The problem is the evidence is in free-living bacteria who are responsible for their own survival and must have that ability. In multicellular organisms most cells are simply cogs in parts of constructive activities.

Thank you for conceding that single-celled bacteria are “free-living”. This is real progress. If free-living organisms join together to cooperate, they will need to reach consensus on what action they take. They too are responsible for their survival, which is no doubt why they joined together. Yes of course “most of the cells” become cogs! But the constructive activities must be directed. So if a single-celled organism can provide its own directions, why do you think it's impossible for a colony of cooperating single-celled organisms to produce its own directions?

DAVID: The only way change occurs is change in the genome of germ cells. Bacteria reproduce by simply splitting, which makes them in full control of any change, and so far Lenski's E. coli are still E. coli after enormous numbers of generations.

Yes, the genome has to change if there is to be a new species. That is why we talk of new genes and of restructuring old genes. And yes, single-celled bacteria do very nicely, but at some time some free-living bacteria decided to form communities, and those are the ones that branched out into all the species that have formed the higgledy-piggledy history of life on Earth.

Under “information flow”:
QUOTE: Each human cell has an information network like a subway system underpinning the function of one of the world's major cities. Instead of human couriers, within our cells, messenger RNAs (mRNAs) carry information. Thousands of mRNAs emerge from the cell's nucleus with instructions for cellular functions and disappear into the cytoplasm when their duties are fulfilled.

DAVID: Amazing. Messenger RNA can be watched and followed. Each cell nucleus is in automatic control of the factory output using its information content.

It sounds just like an ant colony, with each ant running round performing its particular duty. I agree that the messengers act automatically – their job is to obey. The question is where the instructions come from, and the article suggests that the intelligence lies within the nucleus of the cell. That would also be the source of the autonomous, free-living intelligence of the single bacterium.

DAVID: I view multicellularity as a much more complex arrangement than single cells cooperating. That is a step on the way, just as Edicarans were multicellular but so much simpler than Cambrians.

dhw: What else is multicellularity if it is not single cells cooperating? The increasing complexity would be the result of millions and millions of years during which cells increased their range of activity and knowledge as they met with new conditions.

The cooperation in multicellularity is each cell in each organ working for a common purpose, each organ working with the other organs for common purpose. The cells are trapped in a network of controls. Cell committees don't speciate.

[…]
DAVID: There is no question God gave organisms the ability to adapt to changing conditions, but that does not mean they could self-speciate.

dhw: Do you agree, then, that adaptation is an autonomous mechanism, or do you think your God pre-planned every adaptation 3.8 billion years ago, or stepped in to dabble each one? You are quite right that adaptation is not the same as speciation, but it is sometimes difficult to draw a line between the two (e.g. pre-whales adapting to marine life, with legs giving way to fins). The theory therefore remains feasible: if there is a mechanism for cells autonomously restructuring themselves to make minor changes, maybe they were able to make major changes as well.

You can have that 'maybe' approach. I think only a designer can speciate

DAVID: I don't know how God ran the process of evolution, as you note, but my thoughts are not unreasonable.

dhw: What is unreasonable is (a) your total rejection of what you agree is a 50/50 chance (cellular intelligence), and (b) your whole anthropocentric theory of evolution (= direct design) as dissected on various threads.

I don't reject that cells act intelligently. The evidence for the need for design is overwhelming and keeps you agnostic.

DAVID: You think cells are intelligent. How did they develop intelligence? It seems I always propose theories and you poke holes. Do you have a solid theory for cell intelligence source?

dhw: You know perfectly well that nobody has a "solid" theory about any of our subjects, but in this particular one, God is a possible source. However, we are not arguing here about the source! We are arguing about the concept of cellular intelligence, whether designed by God or not. Yes, I poke holes in your theories as you do in mine, but there is one great difference between us: your theories are fixed beliefs, whereas mine are alternatives but not fixed beliefs. However, in the case of the intelligent cell, I must confess I do find it vastly more credible than your fixed belief that every single development and natural wonder in the history of life on Earth was either preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or was personally dabbled by your God as “part of the goal of evolving humans”.

You only fixed belief is design keeps you agnostic.

X
DAVID: Shapiro tells us bacteria can edit their genome. Great example. Which I think is a God=given attribute God gave them.

dhw: Wonderful. If a single cell can edit its genome, it makes perfect sense to assume that lots of cells can edit their genome. Hence the birth of the intelligent cell community and a simple explanation for how evolution works: every cell community edits its genome in order to adapt to or exploit changing conditions, as exemplified by single-celled bacteria.

The problem is the evidence is in free-living bacteria who are responsible for their own survival and must have that ability. In multicellular organisms most cells simply cogs in parts of constructive activities. The only way change occurs is change in the genome of germ cells. Bacteria reproduce by simply splitting, which makes them in full control of any change, and so far Lenski's E. coli are still E. coli after enormous numbers of generations.

Each human cell has an information network like a subway system underpinning the function of one of the world's major cities. Instead of human couriers, within our cells, messenger RNAs (mRNAs) carry information. Thousands of mRNAs emerge from the cell's nucleus with instructions for cellular functions and disappear into the cytoplasm when their duties are fulfilled. Because of the development of single-cell sequencing techniques, we are now very good at counting these messengers, which are specific to each cell type in our body. Qiu et al. developed a new method to watch the movement of mRNAs. The technique can distinguish newly synthesized mRNAs from older ones and track each mRNA with a specific tag. This method provides a picture of the information flow inside cells and shows how they become disrupted by genetic perturbations that can cause cancer.

Comment: Amazing. Messenger RNA can be watched and followed. Each cell nucleus is in automatic control of the factory output using its information content.