Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nature's innate intelligence. Does it exist?
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 1 of 303 (637386)
10-14-2011 11:00 AM


Life is full of examples showing intelligence. Man himself is the biggest. I quote from my work http://www.sleepgadgetabs.com: "Am I legitimized to base my hypothesis on the idea of nature’s innate intelligence and what I mean by it?"
Intelligence: I don’t give it the original meaning of the word (namely, to choose between contingent alternatives). What I really mean is: in response to environmental and other factors, a naturally inside organism pre-existing mechanism, and by force of chemistry and physics, causes changes in the genome. So I think of it as a mechanism, but not intelligence in any traditional sense. Of course we have then the eternal question to face here: how was this made?" But this is a second level question.
I don’t think there is any need to find proofs for existence of such intelligence. It is so abundant around us. It doesn’t necessarily imply a Designer, but it can’t also of course preclude it.
J. Shapiro talks about such intelligence inside cells.
From Guenter Albrecht-Buehler and Robert Laughlin Rea work on CELL INTELLIGENCE I quote:
My experimental work during the past 30 years suggests that single tissue cells have their own data- and signal-processing capacities that help them control their movements and orientation. Cells can seemeasure space and time and must be able to derive abstract data from physical signals
I would like to have the opinion of EvC Forum members.
Edited by Admin, : Fix typos, punctuation, formatting.
Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Nuggin, posted 10-15-2011 10:06 AM zi ko has replied
 Message 4 by Taz, posted 10-15-2011 5:15 PM zi ko has replied
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 10-16-2011 8:40 AM zi ko has replied
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-17-2011 10:29 AM zi ko has replied
 Message 25 by Taq, posted 10-17-2011 11:53 AM zi ko has replied
 Message 34 by nwr, posted 10-17-2011 1:47 PM zi ko has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 303 (637388)
10-15-2011 9:56 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Nature's innate intelligence. Does it exist? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 3 of 303 (637394)
10-15-2011 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by zi ko
10-14-2011 11:00 AM


innate intelligence
"Innate intelligence" is a chiropractic term, isn't it? A made up kind of magic that only chiropractors can manipulate.
It's one of those terms like "your body's natural balance" or "strengthens the immune system" which doesn't really mean anything and can be used by quacks and conmen to sell things without getting in trouble with the FDA

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by zi ko, posted 10-14-2011 11:00 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by zi ko, posted 10-16-2011 1:03 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 4 of 303 (637437)
10-15-2011 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by zi ko
10-14-2011 11:00 AM


Um, no. Throughout my careers (notice the 's' there), I've worked with many things that at first glance appeared to have come from some kind of intelligence but when studied and probed will show that they are just the inevitable consequences of how the universe behaves.
For instance, there is nothing more prevalent than the universal law of accumulation. Things accumulate over time. If there is some kind of selective mechanism to choose which to accumulate and which to not accumulate, then over time we will have things with patterns.
If that doesn't make sense, try to look at it this way. It either is or isn't. If it's isn't, then it's not there and so you won't even think about it. If it is, then it's there and then you're gonna wonder why it's there in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by zi ko, posted 10-14-2011 11:00 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by zi ko, posted 10-16-2011 12:14 PM Taz has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 5 of 303 (637509)
10-16-2011 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by zi ko
10-14-2011 11:00 AM


Hi Zi Ko,
I don't think the rest of the intelligent design world would agree with you that the "intelligent" part of "intelligent design" refers to nature just following its laws. You can call what nature does "intelligent", or you can call what a cell does "intelligent", but its just a relabeling, a semantic game, a rose by any other name.
zi ko writes:
From Guenter Albrecht-Buehler and Robert Laughlin Rea work on CELL INTELLIGENCE I quote:
My experimental work during the past 30 years suggests that single tissue cells have their own data- and signal-processing capacities that help them control their movements and orientation. Cells can seemeasure space and time and must be able to derive abstract data from physical signals
And yet when we look inside a cell all we find is matter and energy obeying the laws of nature. We do not find anything like the extravagant claims of your quote. Instead of finding that "Cells can see" we find cells interacting with their environment. Instead of finding cells that "measure space and time" we find cells carrying out the natural processes of cells and, if they're the right type, moving about within their environment. Instead of finding cells that "derive abstract data from physical signals" we find cells with signaling systems based upon complex chemistry.
What you're doing is not a case of intelligent design research finding evidence of intelligence. You're just throwing up your hands at the complete lack of evidence of actual intelligence by relabeling what we already know about nature as "innate intelligence."
You might want to look into Spinozan philosophy. Spinoza equated God with nature, which is the direction you seem to be leaning.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by zi ko, posted 10-14-2011 11:00 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by zi ko, posted 10-16-2011 12:58 PM Percy has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 6 of 303 (637537)
10-16-2011 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Taz
10-15-2011 5:15 PM


If that doesn't make sense, try to look at it this way. It either is or isn't. If it's isn't, then it's not there and so you won't even think about it. If it is, then it's there and then you're gonna wonder why it's there in the first place.
It seems to me an easy way to ascape from the problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Taz, posted 10-15-2011 5:15 PM Taz has not replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 7 of 303 (637547)
10-16-2011 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Percy
10-16-2011 8:40 AM


And yet when we look inside a cell all we find is matter and energy obeying the laws of nature. We do not find anything like the extravagant claims of your quote. Instead of finding that "Cells can see" we find cells interacting with their environment. Instead of finding cells that "measure space and time" we find cells carrying out the natural processes of cells and, if they're the right type, moving about within their environment. Instead of finding cells that "derive abstract data from physical signals" we find cells with signaling systems based upon complex chemistry.
What you're doing is not a case of intelligent design research finding evidence of intelligence. You're just throwing up your hands at the complete lack of evidence of actual intelligence by relabeling what we already know about nature as "innate intelligence."
When man sees is doing just the same: he is interacting with environment. If man or an animal is intelligent why not a cell could not be?
You might want to look into Spinozan philosophy. Spinoza equated God with nature, which is the direction you seem to be leaning.
I don't equate God with nature. I just don't want to explain everything. Science will give ,or not,
the answer of whow universal laws of matter and energy gave life and where it's innate tedency to self preservation, which is materialised by it's intelligence came from. U p to then all is amatter of personal choice and belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 10-16-2011 8:40 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 10-16-2011 1:06 PM zi ko has replied
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 10-16-2011 1:26 PM zi ko has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 8 of 303 (637548)
10-16-2011 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Nuggin
10-15-2011 10:06 AM


Re: innate intelligence
"Innate intelligence" is a chiropractic term, isn't it?
No it is not. I have given the definition in O.P

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Nuggin, posted 10-15-2011 10:06 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Nuggin, posted 10-16-2011 1:19 PM zi ko has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 9 of 303 (637549)
10-16-2011 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by zi ko
10-16-2011 12:58 PM


no intelligence required
A human can decide whether or not to attach to another person, a hydrogen atom does not get to decide whether to attach to an oxygen atom.
Edited by jar, : rally appalin spallin

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by zi ko, posted 10-16-2011 12:58 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by zi ko, posted 10-19-2011 12:14 PM jar has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 10 of 303 (637553)
10-16-2011 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by zi ko
10-16-2011 1:03 PM


Re: innate intelligence
"Innate intelligence" is a chiropractic term, isn't it?
No it is not. I have given the definition in O.P
Okay, but let's be clear.
In Chiro - "Innate Intelligence" = "an undetectable mechanism inside the body which can not be verified experimentally, to which we attribute a non-specific host of functions."
In this scenario "Innate Intelligence" seems to be "an undetectable mechanism inside the body which can not be verified experimentally, to which we attribute a non-specific host of functions."
In chrio the functions include "energy blockage" and "wellness"
In this scenario the functions include "directed change in the genome"
But really, the claim doesn't seem to be any different.
"Innate Intelligence" is a label for a mechanism which doesn't exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by zi ko, posted 10-16-2011 1:03 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by zi ko, posted 10-17-2011 9:33 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 11 of 303 (637555)
10-16-2011 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by zi ko
10-16-2011 12:58 PM


zi ko writes:
If man or an animal is intelligent why not a cell could not be?
That's how you're going to convince others of your point of view, asking them, "Why not?" Are you serious? That's like asking, if a bird can fly, why not a dog? If cells can engage in horizontal gene transfer (e.g., bacterial conjugation), why can't plants and animals? If a human being can design an airplane, why not a chipmunk?
Is that how you became convinced that cells are intelligent? Someone asked you, "Why not?"
If you want to call a cell intelligent that's your business, but you do not appear to have any reason for doing so, it isn't what other intelligent design proponents are advocating, and you appear to just be playing semantic games.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by zi ko, posted 10-16-2011 12:58 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by zi ko, posted 10-17-2011 8:59 AM Percy has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 12 of 303 (637630)
10-17-2011 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Percy
10-16-2011 1:26 PM


That's how you're going to convince others of your point of view, asking them, "Why not?" Are you serious? That's like asking, if a bird can fly, why not a dog? If cells can engage in horizontal gene transfer (e.g., bacterial conjugation), why can't plants and animals? If a human being can design an airplane, why not a chipmunk?
Your examples are not of analogue level to intelligence. it would be fair to use exaples of the type: If an animal can see, feel hot , danger ect, why not a cell
If you want to call a cell intelligent that's your business, but you do not appear to have any reason for doing so, it isn't what other intelligent design proponents are advocating, and you appear to just be playing semantic games.
MY only reason is only reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 10-16-2011 1:26 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Panda, posted 10-17-2011 9:15 AM zi ko has replied
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 10-17-2011 9:51 AM zi ko has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 13 of 303 (637631)
10-17-2011 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by zi ko
10-17-2011 8:59 AM


zi ko writes:
it would be fair to use exaples of the type: If an animal can see, feel hot , danger ect, why not a cell
So...
If an animal can think: why can't cells think?
If an animal can make noises: why can't cells make noises?
If an animal can hear: why can't cells hear?
If an animal can taste: why can't cells taste?
If an animal can lay eggs: why can't cells lay eggs?
If an animal can weave baskets: why can't cells weave baskets?
If an animal can build a rocket to the moon: why can't cells build a rocket to the moon!
Wow: cells can do almost anything! /sarcasm off
If an animal can run at 30mph: why can't you?

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by zi ko, posted 10-17-2011 8:59 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by zi ko, posted 10-17-2011 9:45 AM Panda has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 14 of 303 (637633)
10-17-2011 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Nuggin
10-16-2011 1:19 PM


Re: innate intelligence
In Chiro - "Innate Intelligence" = "an undetectable mechanism inside the body which can not be verified experimentally, to which we attribute a non-specific host of functions."
In this scenario "Innate Intelligence" seems to be "an undetectable mechanism inside the body which can not be verified experimentally, to which we attribute a non-specific host of functions."
In chrio the functions include "energy blockage" and "wellness"
In this scenario the functions include "directed change in the genome"
But really, the claim doesn't seem to be any different.
"Innate Intelligence" is a label for a mechanism which doesn't exist.
I quote from
Review
Mobile DNA and evolution in the 21st century
James A Shapiro
"
Molecular cell biology has uncovered sophisticated networks in all organisms. They acquire information about external and internal conditions, transmit and process that information inside the cell, compute the appropriate biochemical or biomechanical response, and activate the molecules needed to execute that response. These information-processing networks are central to the systems biology perspective of the new century. Altogether, we have a radically different conceptual perspective on living organisms than our predecessors. As a result, we need to ask how this new perspective affects our 21st century understanding of the evolutionary process. Posing this question and outlining a provisional answer are the goals of this review. .....
Barbara McClintock: thinking about genome change as a cognitive response to challenge
In addition to the discoveries of molecular biology, our 21st century thinking benefits from another major strand of 20th century research - McClintock's cytogenetic studies that led her to recognize the internal capabilities cells possess to repair and restructure their genomes. Starting in the 1930s with X-ray-induced chromosome rearrangements, she analysed how maize cells dealt with broken ends. These studies taught her that maize had the ability to detect broken ends, bring them together and fuse them to generate novel chromosome structures, including deletions, inversions, translocations......"
Do you still think innate intelligence is an undetectable mechanism ...ect?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Nuggin, posted 10-16-2011 1:19 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Nuggin, posted 10-17-2011 11:45 AM zi ko has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 15 of 303 (637634)
10-17-2011 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Panda
10-17-2011 9:15 AM


I advise you to read my O.P. You will see there that cells can "see" "measure" ect

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Panda, posted 10-17-2011 9:15 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 10-17-2011 10:12 AM zi ko has replied
 Message 20 by Panda, posted 10-17-2011 10:56 AM zi ko has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024