|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nature's innate intelligence. Does it exist? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3640 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Thread copied here from the Nature's innate intelligence. Does it exist? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3312 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3640 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
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.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3640 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3640 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
"Innate intelligence" is a chiropractic term, isn't it?
No it is not. I have given the definition in O.P
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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 spallinAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
"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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3640 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3733 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
zi ko writes:
So... it would be fair to use exaples of the type: If an animal can see, feel hot , danger ect, why not a cell 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3640 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
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."
I quote from 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.
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 challengeIn 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3640 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
I advise you to read my O.P. You will see there that cells can "see" "measure" ect
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024