Cellular intelligence (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, November 10, 2021, 11:58 (24 days ago)

I am reopening this thread because despite David’s insistence that the subject belongs to the past, he is reproducing more and more evidence from new research. I have to thank him for this, as he could easily have passed over such articles without informing us. I’ll begin, though, with relevant sections of Shapiro’s brilliant summary, which David himself quoted in his book “The Atheist Delusion”, as we need to see all subsequent articles in the light of Shapiro’s proposals:

Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation, They possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities.
• Cells are built to evolve; they have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics rapidly through well-described natural genetic engineering and epigenetic processes as well as my cell-mergers.
• Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions.

Sensing autonomic activity
QUOTE: Rolls’ study shows “there is a driver,” he said. “There is someone who decides whether to hit the brake or the gas pedal.”

I have adapted my reply to this: Rolls opts for a driver who makes decisions. If, as you say, "the brain keeps track, modulates...", the brain is presumably the “driver” that controls and takes decisions. And the brain consists of various communities of cells working together. Decision-making is not an automatic action.

DAVID: It is if each stimulus has an automatic response. That is the way living biochemistry works.

According to the above, the response to each stimulus requires a decision and a decision-maker. That is the opposite of an “automatic response”.

Control of differentiation

QUOTES: Stem cells are true multi-talents. They can develop into any cell type of an organism -- in humans there are over 200 -- and thus perform all vital tasks. Once the stem cells have decided on a task they can no longer be deterred from their goal. The final product, tissues and organs, almost always look the same and consist of defined proportions of different specialised cell types. But how do the cells actually know what they want to become and how many of them are actually allowed to do so?

"Using stem cells in a test tube, the researchers were able to show that decision-making does not take place purely randomly at the level of individual cells, as previously assumed, but is communicated within the cell community.” (David’s bold)

Communication in cell development is like working in a team. If the members choose tasks without consulting each other, some things are done twice and others not at all. A team that communicates well, on the other hand, can solve problems that arise and complete even complex projects reliably and efficiently," Christian Schröter says. "So it's not just the state of the individual cell that decides on its faith [dhw: Misprint for fate?], but the functioning communication with the other cells.'"

You could hardly have a clearer indication that cells/cell communities cooperate intelligently. These observations are confined to existing systems, but in our discussions on evolution, we are concerned with how speciation occurs – i.e. how cell communities change their form. The ability of stem cells to take on any form seems to me to provide a possible key to the whole problem. When conditions change, these cells can change – always communicating and cooperating with other cells before making and implementing their decisions. See the quote you bolded. Thank you for yet again offering us powerful evidence of cellular intelligence.

NB I am not saying that these articles explicitly support Shapiro to the extent that cells are capable of designing their own evolution – neither of them is written with that context in mind. The point is the confirmation of the first of Shapiro’s statements quoted above. My contention is that the rest of Shapiro’s conclusions are totally feasible once we accept the first point and reject the assumption that every response, decision and innovation is the result of “mindless” cells automatically obeying instructions issued by a God (though it is also feasible that a God may have designed the mechanism in the first place).

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 10, 2021, 14:28 (24 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I am reopening this thread because despite David’s insistence that the subject belongs to the past, he is reproducing more and more evidence from new research. I have to thank him for this, as he could easily have passed over such articles without informing us. I’ll begin, though, with relevant sections of Shapiro’s brilliant summary, which David himself quoted in his book “The Atheist Delusion”, as we need to see all subsequent articles in the light of Shapiro’s proposals:

Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation, They possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities.
• Cells are built to evolve; they have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics rapidly through well-described natural genetic engineering and epigenetic processes as well as my cell-mergers.
• Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions.

Sensing autonomic activity
QUOTE: Rolls’ study shows “there is a driver,” he said. “There is someone who decides whether to hit the brake or the gas pedal.”

I have adapted my reply to this: Rolls opts for a driver who makes decisions. If, as you say, "the brain keeps track, modulates...", the brain is presumably the “driver” that controls and takes decisions. And the brain consists of various communities of cells working together. Decision-making is not an automatic action.

But it can be. See new entry on automatic algorithms in simple brained-animals.


DAVID: It is if each stimulus has an automatic response. That is the way living biochemistry works.

dhw: According to the above, the response to each stimulus requires a decision and a decision-maker. That is the opposite of an “automatic response”.

Stimuli are in limited number, which means all responses can well be automatic as limited in number also.


Control of differentiation

QUOTES: Stem cells are true multi-talents. They can develop into any cell type of an organism -- in humans there are over 200 -- and thus perform all vital tasks. Once the stem cells have decided on a task they can no longer be deterred from their goal. The final product, tissues and organs, almost always look the same and consist of defined proportions of different specialised cell types. But how do the cells actually know what they want to become and how many of them are actually allowed to do so?

"Using stem cells in a test tube, the researchers were able to show that decision-making does not take place purely randomly at the level of individual cells, as previously assumed, but is communicated within the cell community.” (David’s bold)

Communication in cell development is like working in a team. If the members choose tasks without consulting each other, some things are done twice and others not at all. A team that communicates well, on the other hand, can solve problems that arise and complete even complex projects reliably and efficiently," Christian Schröter says. "So it's not just the state of the individual cell that decides on its faith [dhw: Misprint for fate?], but the functioning communication with the other cells.'"

dhw: You could hardly have a clearer indication that cells/cell communities cooperate intelligently. These observations are confined to existing systems, but in our discussions on evolution, we are concerned with how speciation occurs – i.e. how cell communities change their form. The ability of stem cells to take on any form seems to me to provide a possible key to the whole problem. When conditions change, these cells can change – always communicating and cooperating with other cells before making and implementing their decisions. See the quote you bolded. Thank you for yet again offering us powerful evidence of cellular intelligence.

Or simply intelligent design by God.


dhw: NB I am not saying that these articles explicitly support Shapiro to the extent that cells are capable of designing their own evolution – neither of them is written with that context in mind. The point is the confirmation of the first of Shapiro’s statements quoted above. My contention is that the rest of Shapiro’s conclusions are totally feasible once we accept the first point and reject the assumption that every response, decision and innovation is the result of “mindless” cells automatically obeying instructions issued by a God (though it is also feasible that a God may have designed the mechanism in the first place).

Lots of mindless activity occurs with living organisms. See new entry.

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 10, 2021, 15:01 (24 days ago) @ David Turell

A new book review which presents automatic activity in small animals:

https://mindmatters.ai/2021/11/the-innate-navigation-intelligence-of-the-birds-and-the-...

"A bird born near Wales (UK) knows how to fly over 6,200 miles (10,000 km) south in the winter, following the west coastlines of Europe and Africa, then crossing the Atlantic Ocean to land in Argentina. The same bird knows how to return to its original home a few months later. She flies north along the east coasts of South and North America, then crosses the Atlantic back to her birth location. No education or training, no YouTube teaching video, not even a mentor shows the bird, a Manx shearwater, how to accomplish this navigational feat. How does she know the way and what tools does she use?

"The Manx shearwater’s extraordinary story of innate intelligence is just one that Eric Cassell, an engineer of aircraft navigation systems, explores in his book, Animal Algorithms (2021). The book concentrates upon the questions arising from observing behaviors that could only be wired-in or pre-programmed, so it focuses upon animals not usually regarded as “intelligent.” It describes features and behaviors seen in ants, termites, sea turtles, migrating birds and homing pigeons, wasps, fruit flies, terns, lobsters, and even dung beetles.

"Typically, we think of these animals as instinctually skillful but not smart. They aren’t even mammals with large brains; the ant’s brain is about 1/4 the size of a pin head, for example, and bird brains range from less than a gram to 20 grams of mass. These animals exhibit behaviors but lack minds, we say.

"But what are behaviors if not the products of animals’ minds? Author Cassell applies his engineering education and career experience to show that such animal behaviors must be algorithms running on specialized hardware. Simply stated, using evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayer’s definition quoted in Animal Instincts, a biological algorithm is a:

"...coded or prearranged information that controls a process (or behavior) leading it toward a given end.

"ERIC CASSELL, ANIMAL ALGORITHMS, P. 29

"Indeed, artificial intelligence systems (AI) are the same: algorithms running on specialized hardware. AI systems and Complex Programmed Behaviors (CPBs) are conceptually similar as they both involve functions and capabilities in perception, communication, information processing, learning, and decision-making. Cassell observes that both AI and CPB systems require:

"a lot of interdependencies, and therefore the design requirements must take this into account to ensure the components and operation function coherently. If all of the functions are not integrated correctly, system performance is significantly degraded.

"ERIC CASSELL, ANIMAL ALGORITHMS, P. 86

***

"Navigation system software cannot arise by means other than an intelligence that possesses the data, writes the software, and supplies the hardware to run the software and direct the traveler’s next moves in real time.

"We say honey bees and ants are not very intelligent, yet their navigation expertise is entirely non-trivial. Likewise are the many insects’ nest construction powers. Cassell observes it would take deep thought and sophisticated design techniques to build a robot to accomplish what the bees, ants and termites can do shortly after birth:

"If human engineers and software programmers were called on to replicate [such] ability in robots controlled by artificial intelligence, they would find themselves forced to extend well beyond basic programming techniques in order to deliver the goods. The same is true of the complex programmed behaviors that appear to underlie sophisticated nest construction among bees, termites, and other architecturally proficient insects.

" ERIC CASSELL, ANIMAL ALGORITHMS, P. 153

"From the engineering mindset, Cassell explains algorithms must be designed because their sources – information – cannot arise by undirected processes:

"Blind processes have never been observed to produce truly novel complex and specified information, nor has any such process been properly modeled doing so in a computer environment.

"ERIC CASSELL, ANIMAL ALGORITHMS, P. 202

"Do animals exhibiting CPBs have themselves “minds” in some sense? That question is unanswered. We do know from logic and experience, however, that goal-directed action supported by hardware and software systems must originate from the design efforts of intelligent agents, that is, from conscious minds."

Comment: Carrell applies his knowledge of AI in this analysis. These instinctual behaviors cannot develop by stepwise evolution, but require design planning.

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 10, 2021, 15:24 (24 days ago) @ David Turell

Eric Cassell:

https://evolutionnews.org/2021/11/genius-in-lilliput/

"Eric Cassell is an expert in navigation systems, including GPS, and has had a long-time interest in animal navigation. He has more than four decades of experience in systems engineering related to aircraft navigation and safety. He has served as an engineering consultant for NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); has developed computer algorithms for safety systems; and has published numerous technical papers. His academic training includes bachelor’s degrees in biology (George Mason University) and electrical engineering (Villanova University), and a master’s in science and religion from Biola University, which included the history and philosophy of science.

***

From his essay:

"Research has confirmed that the recognition of prey is innate, and that the stinging behavior, which must be done with precise accuracy to work, is controlled by a motor program — that is, a series of sub-routines ordered in a particular sequence to perform a given movement or task. And no simple one. To grasp this, imagine the software program that would be required to enable an advanced micro-drone to deliver a neurotoxin to the precise location in the honey bee to immobilize it. In assessing the complexity and evolution of this wasp behavior, Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini conclude that “such complex, sequential, rigidly pre-programmed behaviour could have gone wrong in many ways, at any one of the steps… Such cases of elaborate innate behavioural programs cannot be accounted for by means of optimizing physio-chemical or geometric factors.”

"The above examples of innate or programmed behaviors are just a handful of numerous such instances in the animal kingdom. Surprisingly, in many instances the behaviors of what we normally think of as primitive animals can be just as complex as those of more advanced animals, including mammals. Indeed, there is little correlation between the cognitive capacity of animals and their ability to produce sophisticated, apparently innate behaviors. The reason may be that such behaviors really are programmed and therefore innate, so the animals do not require significant cognitive capacity to perform them. What they do require is the specific neural “circuitry” that controls the behavior — circuitry that is quite sophisticated but apparently does not require large brains.

"Effusive descriptions of these behaviors can be found in everything from National Geographic television programs to science books and articles. Jennifer Ackerman’s The Genius of Birds and Martin Giurfa’s “The Amazing Mini-Brain: Lessons from a Honey Bee” are two examples among many. The world of science is astounded by some of the complex innate behaviors found in the animal kingdom.

***

"Complex programmed behaviors are evident throughout the animal kingdom, but in these pages the focus will primarily be on less advanced animals. The reason is that more advanced animals, such as primates, have significant cognitive ability, so they exhibit much more of a combination of programmed and learned behaviors, and in such cases the two are not always easily disentangled. It is easier to discriminate between programmed and learned behaviors in less advanced animals, such as bees and butterflies.

"Explaining the origin of these programmed animal behaviors in evolutionary terms is challenging because the behaviors themselves are, in many cases, quite complex and likely undergirded by an extraordinarily sophisticated neurological substrate. Animal behaviors are also strikingly diverse, arguably just as diverse as the breathtaking diversity of physical characteristics we find in the animal kingdom. Those factors alone do not mean the explanatory task is impossible. But it does mean that something more than breezy just-so stories are required to provide a causally adequate explanation for their evolution.

Comment: An essay by Cassell touting his book. I've left out all of his illustrative examples of instinctual behavior. Read them, fascinating. A special quote from Cassell about Darwin:

"In On the Origin of Species the 19th-century naturalist Charles Darwin laid out his revolutionary case for common descent by gradual evolution. Darwin could not be faulted for timidity. He pressed his case at nearly every turn. But even he conceded at one point in the book that many instincts are “so wonderful” that their development “will probably have occurred to many readers, as a difficulty sufficient to overthrow my whole theory.'”

It is sufficient

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by dhw, Thursday, November 11, 2021, 12:03 (23 days ago) @ David Turell

Sensing autonomic activity
QUOTE: Rolls’ study shows “there is a driver,” he said. “There is someone who decides whether to hit the brake or the gas pedal.”

dhw: Rolls opts for a driver who makes decisions. If, as you say, "the brain keeps track, modulates...", the brain is presumably the “driver” that controls and takes decisions. And the brain consists of various communities of cells working together. Decision-making is not an automatic action.

DAVID: But it can be. See new entry on automatic algorithms in simple brained-animals.

See below for my reply to that post

DAVID: It is if each stimulus has an automatic response. That is the way living biochemistry works.

dhw: According to the above, the response to each stimulus requires a decision and a decision-maker. That is the opposite of an “automatic response”.

DAVID: Stimuli are in limited number, which means all responses can well be automatic as limited in number also.

In the course of evolution, there is virtually no limit to stimuli, and different organisms have learned to cope with every kind of environment.

Control of differentiation
I shan’t reproduce all the quotes here.

dhw: You could hardly have a clearer indication that cells/cell communities cooperate intelligently. These observations are confined to existing systems, but in our discussions on evolution, we are concerned with how speciation occurs – i.e. how cell communities change their form. The ability of stem cells to take on any form seems to me to provide a possible key to the whole problem. When conditions change, these cells can change – always communicating and cooperating with other cells before making and implementing their decisions. See the quote you bolded. Thank you for yet again offering us powerful evidence of cellular intelligence.

DAVID: Or simply intelligent design by God.

God may have designed the ability to communicate, cooperate and make decisions.

dhw: NB I am not saying that these articles explicitly support Shapiro to the extent that cells are capable of designing their own evolution – neither of them is written with that context in mind. The point is the confirmation of the first of Shapiro’s statements quoted above. My contention is that the rest of Shapiro’s conclusions are totally feasible once we accept the first point and reject the assumption that every response, decision and innovation is the result of “mindless” cells automatically obeying instructions issued by a God (though it is also feasible that a God may have designed the mechanism in the first place).

DAVID: Lots of mindless activity occurs with living organisms. See new entry.

Of course it does. Conscious intelligence only comes into play with the invention of new processes and/or when things go wrong.

Animal algorithms
QUOTE: "We say honey bees and ants are not very intelligent, yet their navigation expertise is entirely non-trivial. Likewise are the many insects’ nest construction powers. Cassell observes it would take deep thought and sophisticated design techniques to build a robot to accomplish what the bees, ants and termites can do shortly after birth:”

Precisely. The crucial question, then, is how did these skills arise in the first place? Once created, they can be passed on, just as humans have passed on their skills and inventions. You say God preprogrammed them or popped in to give bees and ants a quick course in navigation/nest-building. I propose that the bees and ants worked it all out for themselves.

QUOTE: "If human engineers and software programmers were called on to replicate [such] ability in robots controlled by artificial intelligence, they would find themselves forced to extend well beyond basic programming techniques in order to deliver the goods. The same is true of the complex programmed behaviors that appear to underlie sophisticated nest construction among bees, termites, and other architecturally proficient insects.

QUOTE: "Do animals exhibiting CPBs have themselves “minds” in some sense? That question is unanswered.”

Again, “precisely”. You say an outright no, and I suggest yes.

DAVID: Cassell applies his knowledge of AI in this analysis. These instinctual behaviors cannot develop by stepwise evolution, but require design planning.

I would suggest that natural behaviours most likely did develop stepwise, and yes, they did require design. I doubt if the very first ants built the amazingly complex nests we see today. Subsequent generations would probably have added new features. Bee navigation may well have seen variations in the rate of success, and natural selection will have ensured that ultimately, the successful ones would have passed on their superior knowledge and skills.

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 11, 2021, 18:55 (23 days ago) @ dhw

Sensing autonomic activity
QUOTE: Rolls’ study shows “there is a driver,” he said. “There is someone who decides whether to hit the brake or the gas pedal.”

dhw: Rolls opts for a driver who makes decisions. If, as you say, "the brain keeps track, modulates...", the brain is presumably the “driver” that controls and takes decisions. And the brain consists of various communities of cells working together. Decision-making is not an automatic action.

DAVID: But it can be. See new entry on automatic algorithms in simple brained-animals.

dhw: See below for my reply to that post

DAVID: It is if each stimulus has an automatic response. That is the way living biochemistry works.

dhw: According to the above, the response to each stimulus requires a decision and a decision-maker. That is the opposite of an “automatic response”.

DAVID: Stimuli are in limited number, which means all responses can well be automatic as limited in number also.

dhw: In the course of evolution, there is virtually no limit to stimuli, and different organisms have learned to cope with every kind of environment.

If you list possible stimuli they are limited in number.


Control of differentiation
dhw: I shan’t reproduce all the quotes here.

dhw: See the quote you bolded. Thank you for yet again offering us powerful evidence of cellular intelligence.

DAVID: Or simply intelligent design by God.

dhw: God may have designed the ability to communicate, cooperate and make decisions.

dhw: NB I am not saying that these articles explicitly support Shapiro to the extent that cells are capable of designing their own evolution – neither of them is written with that context in mind. The point is the confirmation of the first of Shapiro’s statements quoted above. My contention is that the rest of Shapiro’s conclusions are totally feasible once we accept the first point and reject the assumption that every response, decision and innovation is the result of “mindless” cells automatically obeying instructions issued by a God (though it is also feasible that a God may have designed the mechanism in the first place).

DAVID: Lots of mindless activity occurs with living organisms. See new entry.

dhw: Of course it does. Conscious intelligence only comes into play with the invention of new processes and/or when things go wrong.

Animal algorithms
QUOTE: "We say honey bees and ants are not very intelligent, yet their navigation expertise is entirely non-trivial. Likewise are the many insects’ nest construction powers. Cassell observes it would take deep thought and sophisticated design techniques to build a robot to accomplish what the bees, ants and termites can do shortly after birth:”

dhw: Precisely...The crucial question, then, is how did these skills arise in the first place? I propose that the bees and ants worked it all out for themselves.

QUOTE: "If human engineers and software programmers were called on to replicate [such] ability in robots controlled by artificial intelligence, they would find themselves forced to extend well beyond basic programming techniques in order to deliver the goods. The same is true of the complex programmed behaviors that appear to underlie sophisticated nest construction among bees, termites, and other architecturally proficient insects.

QUOTE: "Do animals exhibiting CPBs have themselves “minds” in some sense? That question is unanswered.”

dhw:Again, “precisely”. You say an outright no, and I suggest yes.

DAVID: Cassell applies his knowledge of AI in this analysis. These instinctual behaviors cannot develop by stepwise evolution, but require design planning.

dhw: I would suggest that natural behaviours most likely did develop stepwise, and yes, they did require design. I doubt if the very first ants built the amazingly complex nests we see today. Subsequent generations would probably have added new features. Bee navigation may well have seen variations in the rate of success, and natural selection will have ensured that ultimately, the successful ones would have passed on their superior knowledge and skills.

You completely miss the point of the neural complexity that this AI expert denies that natural evolution could have designed it. 'Complexity' in living biochemistry and in neural circuits can only be fully appreciated if educated in the subjects. The opinions cannot be sluffed off. Believe me the complexity requires a designing mind.

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by dhw, Friday, November 12, 2021, 08:24 (22 days ago) @ David Turell

Sensing autonomic activity
QUOTE: Rolls’ study shows “there is a driver,” he said. “There is someone who decides whether to hit the brake or the gas pedal.

DAVID: […] each stimulus has an automatic response. That is the way living biochemistry works.

dhw: According to the above, the response to each stimulus requires a decision and a decision-maker. That is the opposite of an “automatic response”.

DAVID: Stimuli are in limited number, which means all responses can well be automatic as limited in number also.

dhw: In the course of evolution, there is virtually no limit to stimuli, and different organisms have learned to cope with every kind of environment.

DAVID: If you list possible stimuli they are limited in number.

Well, OK, I’ll let you compile the list, starting on Monday, 1st January, 3.8 thousand million years ago…

Control of differentiation
DAVID: Lots of mindless activity occurs with living organisms.

dhw: Of course it does. Conscious intelligence only comes into play with the invention of new processes and/or when things go wrong.

No reply.

Animal algorithms
QUOTE: "We say honey bees and ants are not very intelligent, yet their navigation expertise is entirely non-trivial. Likewise are the many insects’ nest construction powers. Cassell observes it would take deep thought and sophisticated design techniques to build a robot to accomplish what the bees, ants and termites can do shortly after birth:”

dhw: Precisely...The crucial question, then, is how did these skills arise in the first place? I propose that the bees and ants worked it all out for themselves.

QUOTE: "Do animals exhibiting CPBs have themselves “minds” in some sense? That question is unanswered.” [dhw’’s bold]

dhw: Again, “precisely”. You say an outright no, and I suggest yes.

DAVID: Cassell applies his knowledge of AI in this analysis. These instinctual behaviors cannot develop by stepwise evolution, but require design planning.

dhw: I would suggest that natural behaviours most likely did develop stepwise, and yes, they did require design. I doubt if the very first ants built the amazingly complex nests we see today. Subsequent generations would probably have added new features. Bee navigation may well have seen variations in the rate of success, and natural selection will have ensured that ultimately, the successful ones would have passed on their superior knowledge and skills.

DAVID: You completely miss the point of the neural complexity that this AI expert denies that natural evolution could have designed it.

No he doesn’t. He asks if animals have minds, and says the question is unanswered! (See bold above)

DAVID: 'Complexity' in living biochemistry and in neural circuits can only be fully appreciated if educated in the subjects. The opinions cannot be sluffed off. Believe me the complexity requires a designing mind.

I believe you. And I believe Cassell when he says that the question whether animals have minds is unanswered.

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by David Turell @, Friday, November 12, 2021, 16:04 (22 days ago) @ dhw

Sensing autonomic activity
QUOTE: Rolls’ study shows “there is a driver,” he said. “There is someone who decides whether to hit the brake or the gas pedal.

DAVID: […] each stimulus has an automatic response. That is the way living biochemistry works.

dhw: In the course of evolution, there is virtually no limit to stimuli, and different organisms have learned to cope with every kind of environment.

DAVID: If you list possible stimuli they are limited in number.

dhw: Well, OK, I’ll let you compile the list, starting on Monday, 1st January, 3.8 thousand million years ago…

In immediate time external stimuli are limited: environmental changes, dangerous events, in water or on land, etc.


Control of differentiation
DAVID: Lots of mindless activity occurs with living organisms.

dhw: Of course it does. Conscious intelligence only comes into play with the invention of new processes and/or when things go wrong.

No reply.

Where are you placing conscious intelligence?


Animal algorithms

DAVID: You completely miss the point of the neural complexity that this AI expert denies that natural evolution could have designed it.

dhw: No he doesn’t. He asks if animals have minds, and says the question is unanswered! (See bold above)

The complete quote:

Do animals exhibiting CPBs have themselves “minds” in some sense? That question is unanswered. We do know from logic and experience, however, that goal-directed action supported by hardware and software systems must originate from the design efforts of intelligent agents, that is, from conscious minds. Jonathan Bartlett’s June 15, 2021, article here concisely summarized this conclusion:

Intelligent Design … says that agency is a distinct causal category in the world. That is, when I code a computer program, write a book, invent a formula, write a poem, etc., I am doing something that is distinctively beyond the operation of pure physics. There is something distinct about the way that causation works for beings with minds compared to how it works for beings without minds.

JONATHAN BARTLETT, “INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT WHAT MOST PEOPLE THINK IT IS” AT MIND MATTERS NEWS

Picking a minor point of a quote of context is what you do.


DAVID: 'Complexity' in living biochemistry and in neural circuits can only be fully appreciated if educated in the subjects. The opinions cannot be sluffed off. Believe me the complexity requires a designing mind.

dhw:I believe you. And I believe Cassell when he says that the question whether animals have minds is unanswered.

Repeating an honest observation out of context of the whole book.

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by dhw, Saturday, November 13, 2021, 07:44 (21 days ago) @ David Turell

Sensing autonomic activity
QUOTE: Rolls’ study shows “there is a driver,” he said. “There is someone who decides whether to hit the brake or the gas pedal.”

DAVID: […] each stimulus has an automatic response. That is the way living biochemistry works.

dhw: In the course of evolution, there is virtually no limit to stimuli, and different organisms have learned to cope with every kind of environment.

DAVID: If you list possible stimuli they are limited in number.

dhw: Well, OK, I’ll let you compile the list, starting on Monday, 1st January, 3.8 thousand million years ago…

DAVID: In immediate time external stimuli are limited: environmental changes, dangerous events, in water or on land, etc.

I suggest that throughout the last 3.8 thousand million years, there have been countless examples of environmental changes, dangerous events, in water or on land, etc., and these in turn have led to countless changes in life forms as well as lifestyles and natural wonders. Hence the history of evolution.

Control of differentiation
DAVID: Lots of mindless activity occurs with living organisms.

dhw: Of course it does. Conscious intelligence only comes into play with the invention of new processes and/or when things go wrong.

DAVID: Where are you placing conscious intelligence?

Nobody knows the source of conscious intelligence. We only know that it must be there, since we and other life forms respond intelligently to conditions that require the observation, thought-processing, communication, decision-making etc. which are the hallmarks of conscious intelligence.

Animal algorithms
DAVID: You completely miss the point of the neural complexity that this AI expert denies that natural evolution could have designed it.

dhw: No he doesn’t. He asks if animals have minds, and says the question is unanswered!

DAVID: The complete quote:
Do animals exhibiting CPBs have themselves “minds” in some sense? That question is unanswered. We do know from logic and experience, however, that goal-directed action supported by hardware and software systems must originate from the design efforts of intelligent agents, that is, from conscious minds. Jonathan Bartlett’s June 15, 2021, article here concisely summarized this conclusion:
Intelligent Design … says that agency is a distinct causal category in the world. That is, when I code a computer program, write a book, invent a formula, write a poem, etc., I am doing something that is distinctively beyond the operation of pure physics. There is something distinct about the way that causation works for beings with minds compared to how it works for beings without minds.

Just as it takes human intelligence to code programmes, write books, invent formulas, it takes cellular intelligence (an intelligent mind) to perform such “goal-directed actions” as creating new antibodies to counter new threats, restructuring cell communities in order to meet new requirements (adaptation), and creating what Shapiro calls “evolutionary novelty” (the equivalent of human inventions). All of these actions are “distinctively beyond the operation of pure physics”. But the only intelligent minds you can think of are ours and your God’s. You can’t imagine your God giving ALL life forms intelligent “minds in some sense”.

DAVID: Picking a minor point of a quote of context is what you do.

Even if Mr Bartlett is like you, and can’t imagine animals and cells having “minds”, what he has written does not in any way weaken the case for cellular intelligence.

DAVID: 'Complexity' in living biochemistry and in neural circuits can only be fully appreciated if educated in the subjects. The opinions cannot be sluffed off. Believe me the complexity requires a designing mind.

dhw:I believe you. And I believe Cassell when he says that the question whether animals have minds is unanswered.

DAVID: Repeating an honest observation out of context of the whole book.

The words you have quoted leave open the case for cellular intelligence. I’m in no position to comment on the whole book. If you choose a quote that can be used to support my case, please don’t blame me.

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 13, 2021, 14:21 (21 days ago) @ dhw

Sensing autonomic activity

DAVID: If you list possible stimuli they are limited in number.

dhw: Well, OK, I’ll let you compile the list, starting on Monday, 1st January, 3.8 thousand million years ago…

DAVID: In immediate time external stimuli are limited: environmental changes, dangerous events, in water or on land, etc.

dhw: I suggest that throughout the last 3.8 thousand million years, there have been countless examples of environmental changes, dangerous events, in water or on land, etc., and these in turn have led to countless changes in life forms as well as lifestyles and natural wonders. Hence the history of evolution.

I'll stick to my view survival plays no role in driving evolution to the next stage


Control of differentiation

DAVID: Where are you placing conscious intelligence?

dhw: Nobody knows the source of conscious intelligence. We only know that it must be there, since we and other life forms respond intelligently to conditions that require the observation, thought-processing, communication, decision-making etc. which are the hallmarks of conscious intelligence.

The appearance of conscious intelligence can be the result of intelligent design. From the outside of cells we can see the intelligent activity but not its cause. I'm still point to either/or 50/50.


Animal algorithms
DAVID: You completely miss the point of the neural complexity that this AI expert denies that natural evolution could have designed it.

dhw: No he doesn’t. He asks if animals have minds, and says the question is unanswered!

DAVID: The complete quote:
Do animals exhibiting CPBs have themselves “minds” in some sense? That question is unanswered. We do know from logic and experience, however, that goal-directed action supported by hardware and software systems must originate from the design efforts of intelligent agents, that is, from conscious minds. Jonathan Bartlett’s June 15, 2021, article here concisely summarized this conclusion:
Intelligent Design … says that agency is a distinct causal category in the world. That is, when I code a computer program, write a book, invent a formula, write a poem, etc., I am doing something that is distinctively beyond the operation of pure physics. There is something distinct about the way that causation works for beings with minds compared to how it works for beings without minds.
[/b]

dhw: Just as it takes human intelligence to code programmes, write books, invent formulas, it takes cellular intelligence (an intelligent mind) to perform such “goal-directed actions” as creating new antibodies to counter new threats, restructuring cell communities in order to meet new requirements (adaptation), and creating what Shapiro calls “evolutionary novelty” (the equivalent of human inventions). All of these actions are “distinctively beyond the operation of pure physics”. But the only intelligent minds you can think of are ours and your God’s. You can’t imagine your God giving ALL life forms intelligent “minds in some sense”.

The bold I created is the point. Cells are distinctively different than our minds. I view God as creating entire cellular processes

DAVID: Picking a minor point of a quote of context is what you do.

dhw: Even if Mr Bartlett is like you, and can’t imagine animals and cells having “minds”, what he has written does not in any way weaken the case for cellular intelligence.

The 'case' is pure opinion as we all are outside the action.


DAVID: 'Complexity' in living biochemistry and in neural circuits can only be fully appreciated if educated in the subjects. The opinions cannot be sluffed off. Believe me the complexity requires a designing mind.

dhw:I believe you. And I believe Cassell when he says that the question whether animals have minds is unanswered.

DAVID: Repeating an honest observation out of context of the whole book.

dhw: The words you have quoted leave open the case for cellular intelligence. I’m in no position to comment on the whole book. If you choose a quote that can be used to support my case, please don’t blame me.

We each have opposite opinions

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by dhw, Sunday, November 14, 2021, 11:06 (20 days ago) @ David Turell

Sensing autonomic activity
DAVID: If you list possible stimuli they are limited in number.[…]

dhw: I suggest that throughout the last 3.8 thousand million years, there have been countless examples of environmental changes, dangerous events, in water or on land, etc., and these in turn have led to countless changes in life forms as well as lifestyles and natural wonders. Hence the history of evolution.

DAVID: I'll stick to my view survival plays no role in driving evolution to the next stage.

You said stimuli were limited, and I pointed out that there must have been millions of different stimuli in the last 3.8 thousand million years. As for survival, do you or do you not agree that the development of flippers from legs was an aid to survival and a factor in changing pre-whales into whales (= speciation)?

Control of differentiation
DAVID: The appearance of conscious intelligence can be the result of intelligent design.

I keep agreeing that cellular intelligence may have been designed by your God. The argument is over its existence, not its possible source.

DAVID: From the outside of cells we can see the intelligent activity but not its cause. I'm still point to either/or 50/50.

What are you pointing to now? Its existence being 50/50 (then don’t dismiss it), or your God being its cause (I’ll settle for 50/50 on that)?

Animal algorithms
DAVID: You completely miss the point of the neural complexity that this AI expert denies that natural evolution could have designed it.

dhw: No he doesn’t. He asks if animals have minds, and says the question is unanswered!

I shan’t repeat the quotes, as you only have one point to make:

DAVID: Cells are distinctively different than our minds. I view God as creating entire cellular processes.

If cells have minds, then of course they are different from ours. That is why the writer put the word in inverted commas. But no matter how different a mind may be, its attribute of conscious intelligence (the ability to think) has to be present. You think the chances are 50/50, which for you means 100% no.

dhw: Even if Mr Bartlett is like you, and can’t imagine animals and cells having “minds”, what he has written does not in any way weaken the case for cellular intelligence.

DAVID: The 'case' is pure opinion as we all are outside the action.

You accused me of distorting the meaning of the above quotes. I have shown you that they can be used to support the case for cellular intelligence. That is a matter of text interpretation, not of our different opinions on the subject.

DAVID: Repeating an honest observation out of context of the whole book.

dhw: The words you have quoted leave open the case for cellular intelligence. I’m in no position to comment on the whole book. If you choose a quote that can be used to support my case, please don’t blame me.
DAVID: We each have opposite opinions.

And you have offered us quotes which support the possibility of cellular intelligence (we don’t know if they have minds), whereas you think the text is saying they do not have minds.

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 14, 2021, 15:29 (20 days ago) @ dhw

Sensing autonomic activity

DAVID: I'll stick to my view survival plays no role in driving evolution to the next stage.

dhw: You said stimuli were limited, and I pointed out that there must have been millions of different stimuli in the last 3.8 thousand million years. As for survival, do you or do you not agree that the development of flippers from legs was an aid to survival and a factor in changing pre-whales into whales (= speciation)?

Flippers are a requirement for survival in a watery environment. So God designed them helping mammals become aquatic.


Control of differentiation
DAVID: The appearance of conscious intelligence can be the result of intelligent design.

dhw: I keep agreeing that cellular intelligence may have been designed by your God. The argument is over its existence, not its possible source.

Agreed, as below:


DAVID: From the outside of cells we can see the intelligent activity but not its cause. I'm still point to either/or 50/50.

dhw: What are you pointing to now? Its existence being 50/50 (then don’t dismiss it), or your God being its cause (I’ll settle for 50/50 on that)?

Possibility is 50/50 and pick your side if you wish. I have my side.


Animal algorithms
DAVID: You completely miss the point of the neural complexity that this AI expert denies that natural evolution could have designed it.

dhw: No he doesn’t. He asks if animals have minds, and says the question is unanswered!

I shan’t repeat the quotes, as you only have one point to make:

DAVID: Cells are distinctively different than our minds. I view God as creating entire cellular processes.

dhw: If cells have minds, then of course they are different from ours. That is why the writer put the word in inverted commas. But no matter how different a mind may be, its attribute of conscious intelligence (the ability to think) has to be present. You think the chances are 50/50, which for you means 100% no.

If there are two possibilities, I am allowed to pick one side as more logical based on my knowledge of living biochemistry.


dhw: Even if Mr Bartlett is like you, and can’t imagine animals and cells having “minds”, what he has written does not in any way weaken the case for cellular intelligence.

DAVID: The 'case' is pure opinion as we all are outside the action.

dhw: You accused me of distorting the meaning of the above quotes. I have shown you that they can be used to support the case for cellular intelligence. That is a matter of text interpretation, not of our different opinions on the subject.

You will always support cellular innate intelligence as your rigid theory.


DAVID: Repeating an honest observation out of context of the whole book.

dhw: The words you have quoted leave open the case for cellular intelligence. I’m in no position to comment on the whole book. If you choose a quote that can be used to support my case, please don’t blame me.
DAVID: We each have opposite opinions.

dhw: And you have offered us quotes which support the possibility of cellular intelligence (we don’t know if they have minds), whereas you think the text is saying they do not have minds.

Coming from an ID source what else should I think. You distort textual meanings to fit your rigid wish for innate cellular intelligence, although when pressed you allow God to give it to cells to use without God's guidance. It that an agnostic balancing act of a fair neutral view of God. I think it is unbalanced.

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by dhw, Monday, November 15, 2021, 12:07 (19 days ago) @ David Turell

Control of differentiation
DAVID: The appearance of conscious intelligence can be the result of intelligent design.

dhw: I keep agreeing that cellular intelligence may have been designed by your God. The argument is over its existence, not its possible source.

DAVID: Agreed, as below:

DAVID: from the outside of cells we can see the intelligent activity but not its cause. I'm still point to either/or 50/50.

dhw: What are you pointing to now? Its existence being 50/50 (then don’t dismiss it), or your God being its cause (I’ll settle for 50/50 on that)?

DAVID: Possibility is 50/50 and pick your side if you wish. I have my side.

I'll settle for that!

Animal algorithms
DAVID: You completely miss the point of the neural complexity that this AI expert denies that natural evolution could have designed it.

dhw: No he doesn’t. He asks if animals have minds, and says the question is unanswered!
I shan’t repeat the quotes, as you only have one point to make:

DAVID: Cells are distinctively different than our minds. I view God as creating entire cellular processes.

dhw: If cells have minds, then of course they are different from ours. That is why the writer put the word in inverted commas. But no matter how different a mind may be, its attribute of conscious intelligence (the ability to think) has to be present. You think the chances are 50/50, which for you means 100% no.

DAVID: If there are two possibilities, I am allowed to pick one side as more logical based on my knowledge of living biochemistry.

Yes of course, and Shapiro, McClintock, Margulis, Bühler and others are allowed to pick their side, based on their knowledge of living biochemistry.

dhw: Even if Mr Bartlett is like you, and can’t imagine animals and cells having “minds”, what he has written does not in any way weaken the case for cellular intelligence.

DAVID: The 'case' is pure opinion as we all are outside the action.

dhw: You accused me of distorting the meaning of the above quotes. I have shown you that they can be used to support the case for cellular intelligence. That is a matter of text interpretation, not of our different opinions on the subject.

DAVID: You will always support cellular innate intelligence as your rigid theory.

It's not rigid, but see below for my view of it.

dhw: And you have offered us quotes which support the possibility of cellular intelligence (we don’t know if they have minds), whereas you think the text is saying they do not have minds.

DAVID: Coming from an ID source what else should I think. You distort textual meanings to fit your rigid wish for innate cellular intelligence, although when pressed you allow God to give it to cells to use without God's guidance. It that an agnostic balancing act of a fair neutral view of God. I think it is unbalanced.

You should examine the quote and recognize that it fits in perfectly well with your God giving cells the ability to think. I have not been “pressed” into “allowing” God anything. I am an agnostic, and if the theory of cellular intelligence is true, I acknowledge a 50/50 chance of your God being its designer. What is unbalanced? I also acknowledge that the theory is not proven, and the mystery of life and evolution remains unsolved, but in all honesty I must confess that I find the theory more convincing than the idea of your God preprogramming the whole history of life 3.8 billion years ago, or of him popping in to turn legs into flippers, or to give courses to weaverbirds in nest-building.

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by David Turell @, Monday, November 15, 2021, 15:18 (19 days ago) @ dhw

Animal algorithms

dhw: Even if Mr Bartlett is like you, and can’t imagine animals and cells having “minds”, what he has written does not in any way weaken the case for cellular intelligence.

DAVID: The 'case' is pure opinion as we all are outside the action.

dhw: You accused me of distorting the meaning of the above quotes. I have shown you that they can be used to support the case for cellular intelligence. That is a matter of text interpretation, not of our different opinions on the subject.

DAVID: You will always support cellular innate intelligence as your rigid theory.

dhw: It's not rigid, but see below for my view of it.

If research shows cellular activities are not automatic, I'll change my view accordingly.


dhw: And you have offered us quotes which support the possibility of cellular intelligence (we don’t know if they have minds), whereas you think the text is saying they do not have minds.

DAVID: Coming from an ID source what else should I think. You distort textual meanings to fit your rigid wish for innate cellular intelligence, although when pressed you allow God to give it to cells to use without God's guidance. It that an agnostic balancing act of a fair neutral view of God. I think it is unbalanced.

dhw: You should examine the quote and recognize that it fits in perfectly well with your God giving cells the ability to think. I have not been “pressed” into “allowing” God anything. I am an agnostic, and if the theory of cellular intelligence is true, I acknowledge a 50/50 chance of your God being its designer. What is unbalanced? I also acknowledge that the theory is not proven, and the mystery of life and evolution remains unsolved, but in all honesty I must confess that I find the theory more convincing than the idea of your God preprogramming the whole history of life 3.8 billion years ago, or of him popping in to turn legs into flippers, or to give courses to weaverbirds in nest-building.

God, the designer can do all of it. And I'll continue asking without God where does cell intelligence come from?

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by dhw, Tuesday, November 16, 2021, 11:22 (18 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You will always support cellular innate intelligence as your rigid theory.

dhw: It's not rigid, but see below for my view of it.
DAVID: If research shows cellular activities are not automatic, I'll change my view accordingly.

It’s difficult to see how such a concept can be proven either way. We can only observe their behaviour, which you agree is intelligent. But then the same difficulty applies to the existence of God. Unless we get definitive proof, we can only weigh up the pros and cons.

dhw: […] in all honesty I must confess that I find the theory more convincing than the idea of your God preprogramming the whole history of life 3.8 billion years ago, or of him popping in to turn legs into flippers, or to give courses to weaverbirds in nest-building.

DAVID: God, the designer can do all of it. And I'll continue asking without God where does cell intelligence come from?

As before, we are discussing whether cells are or are not intelligent. I accept the argument that if God exists, he must have designed it, but then we have to move to the question of where did God come from – and that takes us back to first cause, which may be God or may be an impersonal universe….but we have discussed this over and over again.

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 16, 2021, 15:23 (18 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You will always support cellular innate intelligence as your rigid theory.

dhw: It's not rigid, but see below for my view of it.
DAVID: If research shows cellular activities are not automatic, I'll change my view accordingly.

It’s difficult to see how such a concept can be proven either way. We can only observe their behaviour, which you agree is intelligent. But then the same difficulty applies to the existence of God. Unless we get definitive proof, we can only weigh up the pros and cons.

dhw: […] in all honesty I must confess that I find the theory more convincing than the idea of your God preprogramming the whole history of life 3.8 billion years ago, or of him popping in to turn legs into flippers, or to give courses to weaverbirds in nest-building.

DAVID: God, the designer can do all of it. And I'll continue asking without God where does cell intelligence come from?

dhw: As before, we are discussing whether cells are or are not intelligent. I accept the argument that if God exists, he must have designed it, but then we have to move to the question of where did God come from – and that takes us back to first cause, which may be God or may be an impersonal universe….but we have discussed this over and over again.

Note today's entry about cell complexity precluding labs making life

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by dhw, Wednesday, November 17, 2021, 10:49 (17 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] in all honesty I must confess that I find the theory more convincing than the idea of your God preprogramming the whole history of life 3.8 billion years ago, or of him popping in to turn legs into flippers, or to give courses to weaverbirds in nest-building.

DAVID: God, the designer can do all of it. And I'll continue asking without God where does cell intelligence come from?

hw: As before, we are discussing whether cells are or are not intelligent. I accept the argument that if God exists, he must have designed it, but then we have to move to the question of where did God come from – and that takes us back to first cause, which may be God or may be an impersonal universe….but we have discussed this over and over again.

DAVID: Note today's entry about cell complexity precluding labs making life.

It tells us absolutely nothing about the possible intelligence of cells:

Theoretical origin of life: made in a lab, impossible
DAVID: in our reality only life begets life. This exposition of the complexity of cells should show dhw how the automaticity of life is necessary.

I have never denied that automaticity is necessary. How else would species and systems remain stable? Once again you are ignoring my constant reminder that cellular intelligence will only be manifested through the ORIGIN of species and systems and through responses to new requirements. Even you admit that these actions are intelligent, but you insist that they were all preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or your God pops in to give instructions whenever a new problem arises. Point repeated from “Miscellany”:

DAVID: I think all cell decisions are automatic. No autonomous intelligence.

dhw: You always illustrate your belief in automaticity by referring to established systems. It is the solving of new problems and the ORIGIN of established systems that demonstrate intelligence. I will continue to point this out whenever you try to oppose the theory with your automatic examples.

DAVID: Yes, God's intelligence at work.

As above, then, all problems solved by direct divine dabbling or a divine 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all problems, life forms etc. to cover the rest of life’s history. In all honesty I must confess....back to the first entry of this post.

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 17, 2021, 15:04 (17 days ago) @ dhw

Theoretical origin of life: made in a lab, impossible
DAVID: in our reality only life begets life. This exposition of the complexity of cells should show dhw how the automaticity of life is necessary.

dhw: I have never denied that automaticity is necessary. How else would species and systems remain stable? Once again you are ignoring my constant reminder that cellular intelligence will only be manifested through the ORIGIN of species and systems and through responses to new requirements. Even you admit that these actions are intelligent, but you insist that they were all preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or your God pops in to give instructions whenever a new problem arises. Point repeated from “Miscellany”:

DAVID: I think all cell decisions are automatic. No autonomous intelligence.

dhw: You always illustrate your belief in automaticity by referring to established systems. It is the solving of new problems and the ORIGIN of established systems that demonstrate intelligence. I will continue to point this out whenever you try to oppose the theory with your automatic examples.

DAVID: Yes, God's intelligence at work.

dhw: As above, then, all problems solved by direct divine dabbling or a divine 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all problems, life forms etc. to cover the rest of life’s history. In all honesty I must confess....back to the first entry of this post.

The information required to run the new processes of new forms or originating life itself has a source. Mine is God

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by dhw, Thursday, November 18, 2021, 11:28 (16 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You always illustrate your belief in automaticity by referring to established systems. It is the solving of new problems and the ORIGIN of established systems that demonstrate intelligence. I will continue to point this out whenever you try to oppose the theory with your automatic examples.

DAVID: Yes, God's intelligence at work.

dhw: As above, then, all problems solved by direct divine dabbling or a divine 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all problems, life forms etc. to cover the rest of life’s history. […].

DAVID: The information required to run the new processes of new forms or originating life itself has a source. Mine is God.

The question whether cells are intelligent or not has nothing to do with the source of life, and whatever may be the information required to design new forms or to solve problems, it has to be processed, passed on to the rest of the body (= communication), and ultimately used in the formation of a decision. Processing information, communication, decision-making are all characteristics of what we call intelligence. When machines do such work, we call it artificial intelligence. When cells and organisms do it, we could call it natural intelligence. We don’t/can’t know the source of that intelligence, but I would certainly regard your God as being just as feasible as a lucky combination of materials.

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 18, 2021, 15:07 (16 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You always illustrate your belief in automaticity by referring to established systems. It is the solving of new problems and the ORIGIN of established systems that demonstrate intelligence. I will continue to point this out whenever you try to oppose the theory with your automatic examples.

DAVID: Yes, God's intelligence at work.

dhw: As above, then, all problems solved by direct divine dabbling or a divine 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all problems, life forms etc. to cover the rest of life’s history. […].

DAVID: The information required to run the new processes of new forms or originating life itself has a source. Mine is God.

dhw: The question whether cells are intelligent or not has nothing to do with the source of life, and whatever may be the information required to design new forms or to solve problems, it has to be processed, passed on to the rest of the body (= communication), and ultimately used in the formation of a decision. Processing information, communication, decision-making are all characteristics of what we call intelligence. When machines do such work, we call it artificial intelligence. When cells and organisms do it, we could call it natural intelligence. We don’t/can’t know the source of that intelligence, but I would certainly regard your God as being just as feasible as a lucky combination of materials.

The issue is really not intelligence, but the source of new information to create new species. Where did the information for the Cambrian explosion come from?

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by dhw, Friday, November 19, 2021, 08:34 (15 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You always illustrate your belief in automaticity by referring to established systems. It is the solving of new problems and the ORIGIN of established systems that demonstrate intelligence. I will continue to point this out whenever you try to oppose the theory with your automatic examples.

DAVID: Yes, God's intelligence at work.

dhw: As above, then, all problems solved by direct divine dabbling or a divine 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all problems, life forms etc. to cover the rest of life’s history. […].

DAVID: The information required to run the new processes of new forms or originating life itself has a source. Mine is God.

dhw: The question whether cells are intelligent or not has nothing to do with the source of life, and whatever may be the information required to design new forms or to solve problems, it has to be processed, passed on to the rest of the body (= communication), and ultimately used in the formation of a decision. Processing information, communication, decision-making are all characteristics of what we call intelligence. When machines do such work, we call it artificial intelligence. When cells and organisms do it, we could call it natural intelligence. We don’t/can’t know the source of that intelligence, but I would certainly regard your God as being just as feasible as a lucky combination of materials.

DAVID: The issue is really not intelligence, but the source of new information to create new species. Where did the information for the Cambrian explosion come from?

Of course the issue is intelligence. I don’t know why you have to muddy the waters with the vague word “information”. Nobody knows the cause of the Cambrian Explosion, but it is not unreasonable to suppose that there was some kind of major change in conditions (perhaps an increase in oxygen). We know for a fact that some life forms are able to adapt to new conditions by making minor changes to themselves. This means their cell communities are capable of engineering their own mutations. The theory of cellular intelligence proposes that these same cell communities are also able to make major changes to themselves, resulting in what we call innovations – and hence the origin of new species. You know all this, and the issue is whether cells are intelligent or not.

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by David Turell @, Friday, November 19, 2021, 16:12 (15 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The information required to run the new processes of new forms or originating life itself has a source. Mine is God.

dhw: The question whether cells are intelligent or not has nothing to do with the source of life, and whatever may be the information required to design new forms or to solve problems, it has to be processed, passed on to the rest of the body (= communication), and ultimately used in the formation of a decision. Processing information, communication, decision-making are all characteristics of what we call intelligence. When machines do such work, we call it artificial intelligence. When cells and organisms do it, we could call it natural intelligence. We don’t/can’t know the source of that intelligence, but I would certainly regard your God as being just as feasible as a lucky combination of materials.

DAVID: The issue is really not intelligence, but the source of new information to create new species. Where did the information for the Cambrian explosion come from?

dhw: Of course the issue is intelligence. I don’t know why you have to muddy the waters with the vague word “information”. Nobody knows the cause of the Cambrian Explosion, but it is not unreasonable to suppose that there was some kind of major change in conditions (perhaps an increase in oxygen). We know for a fact that some life forms are able to adapt to new conditions by making minor changes to themselves. This means their cell communities are capable of engineering their own mutations. The theory of cellular intelligence proposes that these same cell communities are also able to make major changes to themselves, resulting in what we call innovations – and hence the origin of new species. You know all this, and the issue is whether cells are intelligent or not.

The issue is simple. Do living cells have the ability to create the new information needed to design a newly formed species from a previous form? Major innovations contain major new information. Information is not a vague subject, but over the last 50 years the subject of massive development of understanding which has been required for internet transmission as one example. And it has been applied to studies of evolution, especially by ID folks.

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by dhw, Saturday, November 20, 2021, 12:52 (14 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The issue is really not intelligence, but the source of new information to create new species. Where did the information for the Cambrian explosion come from?

dhw: Of course the issue is intelligence. I don’t know why you have to muddy the waters with the vague word “information”. Nobody knows the cause of the Cambrian Explosion, but it is not unreasonable to suppose that there was some kind of major change in conditions (perhaps an increase in oxygen). We know for a fact that some life forms are able to adapt to new conditions by making minor changes to themselves. This means their cell communities are capable of engineering their own mutations. The theory of cellular intelligence proposes that these same cell communities are also able to make major changes to themselves, resulting in what we call innovations – and hence the origin of new species. You know all this, and the issue is whether cells are intelligent or not.

DAVID: The issue is simple. Do living cells have the ability to create the new information needed to design a newly formed species from a previous form? Major innovations contain major new information. Information is not a vague subject, but over the last 50 years the subject of massive development of understanding which has been required for internet transmission as one example. And it has been applied to studies of evolution, especially by ID folks.

In your terms, the “ability to create the new information” is what I call intelligence. The issue is whether cells/cell communities do or do not have that ability. (See your bolded statement above). There's no need to faff around discussing the importance of “information” over the last 50 years, or the sources of “information” for the Cambrian, or the different uses of “information” in all sorts of fields. You say innovations are caused by God's dabbling or 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all innovations, lifestyles, solutions, natural wonders etc., and you refuse to accept the (theistic) possibility that he might have given cells the autonomous ability (intelligence) to design their own innovations, and bees and weaverbirds the ability (intelligence) to design their own dances and nests. That IS the issue! I doubt if we can take the discussion any further, other than by discussing new examples of intelligence. And I must thank you for so frequently providing such examples!;-)

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 20, 2021, 19:45 (14 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The issue is really not intelligence, but the source of new information to create new species. Where did the information for the Cambrian explosion come from?

dhw: Of course the issue is intelligence. I don’t know why you have to muddy the waters with the vague word “information”. Nobody knows the cause of the Cambrian Explosion, but it is not unreasonable to suppose that there was some kind of major change in conditions (perhaps an increase in oxygen). We know for a fact that some life forms are able to adapt to new conditions by making minor changes to themselves. This means their cell communities are capable of engineering their own mutations. The theory of cellular intelligence proposes that these same cell communities are also able to make major changes to themselves, resulting in what we call innovations – and hence the origin of new species. You know all this, and the issue is whether cells are intelligent or not.

DAVID: The issue is simple. Do living cells have the ability to create the new information needed to design a newly formed species from a previous form? Major innovations contain major new information. Information is not a vague subject, but over the last 50 years the subject of massive development of understanding which has been required for internet transmission as one example. And it has been applied to studies of evolution, especially by ID folks.

dhw: In your terms, the “ability to create the new information” is what I call intelligence. The issue is whether cells/cell communities do or do not have that ability. (See your bolded statement above). There's no need to faff around discussing the importance of “information” over the last 50 years, or the sources of “information” for the Cambrian, or the different uses of “information” in all sorts of fields. You say innovations are caused by God's dabbling or 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all innovations, lifestyles, solutions, natural wonders etc., and you refuse to accept the (theistic) possibility that he might have given cells the autonomous ability (intelligence) to design their own innovations, and bees and weaverbirds the ability (intelligence) to design their own dances and nests. That IS the issue! I doubt if we can take the discussion any further, other than by discussing new examples of intelligence. And I must thank you for so frequently providing such examples!;-)

Yes, something mental must produce information for design. I don't see how simple automatic cells do it. The information must appear in stem cells, and I'll stick with god supplying it.
Note today's entry on transcriptome construction and action and the need for precise design with many specific protein molecules.

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by dhw, Sunday, November 21, 2021, 10:55 (13 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The issue is simple. Do living cells have the ability to create the new information needed to design a newly formed species from a previous form? Major innovations contain major new information. Information is not a vague subject, but over the last 50 years the subject of massive development of understanding which has been required for internet transmission as one example. And it has been applied to studies of evolution, especially by ID folks.

dhw: In your terms, the “ability to create the new information” is what I call intelligence. The issue is whether cells/cell communities do or do not have that ability. (See your bolded statement above). There's no need to faff around discussing the importance of “information” over the last 50 years, or the sources of “information” for the Cambrian, or the different uses of “information” in all sorts of fields. You say innovations are caused by God's dabbling or 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all innovations, lifestyles, solutions, natural wonders etc., and you refuse to accept the (theistic) possibility that he might have given cells the autonomous ability (intelligence) to design their own innovations, and bees and weaverbirds the ability (intelligence) to design their own dances and nests. That IS the issue! I doubt if we can take the discussion any further, other than by discussing new examples of intelligence. And I must thank you for so frequently providing such examples!

DAVID: Yes, something mental must produce information for design. I don't see how simple automatic cells do it.

Nor do I. That is why I propose that cells are not simple and automatic, but have a mental capacity capable of design.

DAVID: The information must appear in stem cells, and I'll stick with god supplying it.

We are talking about the ability of cells to change their form in response to new requirements or new problems. Since we know that stem cells can change their form, they may well be the key to the whole process – but alas I’m in no position to win the Nobel Prize for cracking all the mysteries of evolution!;-)

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 21, 2021, 16:35 (13 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The issue is simple. Do living cells have the ability to create the new information needed to design a newly formed species from a previous form? Major innovations contain major new information. Information is not a vague subject, but over the last 50 years the subject of massive development of understanding which has been required for internet transmission as one example. And it has been applied to studies of evolution, especially by ID folks.

dhw: In your terms, the “ability to create the new information” is what I call intelligence. The issue is whether cells/cell communities do or do not have that ability. (See your bolded statement above). There's no need to faff around discussing the importance of “information” over the last 50 years, or the sources of “information” for the Cambrian, or the different uses of “information” in all sorts of fields. You say innovations are caused by God's dabbling or 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all innovations, lifestyles, solutions, natural wonders etc., and you refuse to accept the (theistic) possibility that he might have given cells the autonomous ability (intelligence) to design their own innovations, and bees and weaverbirds the ability (intelligence) to design their own dances and nests. That IS the issue! I doubt if we can take the discussion any further, other than by discussing new examples of intelligence. And I must thank you for so frequently providing such examples!

DAVID: Yes, something mental must produce information for design. I don't see how simple automatic cells do it.

dhw: Nor do I. That is why I propose that cells are not simple and automatic, but have a mental capacity capable of design.

Or have a designer at work.


DAVID: The information must appear in stem cells, and I'll stick with god supplying it.

dhw: We are talking about the ability of cells to change their form in response to new requirements or new problems. Since we know that stem cells can change their form, they may well be the key to the whole process – but alas I’m in no position to win the Nobel Prize for cracking all the mysteries of evolution!;-)

The Nobel Committee will follow your efforts on this website. Who knows??? ;-)

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum