|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nature's innate intelligence. Does it exist? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 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 3649 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 3649 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 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 3649 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
I advise you to read my O.P. You will see there that cells can "see" "measure" ect
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Your example is fine. Is this how you expect to convince people, asking "Why not?" Is that how you became convinced, someone asked you, "Why not?"
Iam not trying to convince anybody. Only to make people to think that there are others as well routes of thinking. In any case my work is hypothetical if you remember.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Your OP contains baseless claims that cells can "see" and "measure". There's no evidence of this, and even you are embedding them in quotes. You're just labeling cells intelligent without any justification. Your Shapiro and McClintock quotes are describing qualities to cells using grandiose terms that don't really apply. For example, we can label complex chemical cellular reactions to the environment as "information processing", but that doesn't make a cell intelligent in way we normally use the term, and it doesn't provide any support for claims of nature's "innate intelligence."
Why do you insist on sayng the same thing? I already had accepted that man too reacts to environment when he sees ect. Don't we say the same thing? Didn't i defined intelligence, as i mean it? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Why not something like "plasticity"? That would be less confusing and actually make more sense. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ihad given the needed definition. What is so confusingabout?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
But cells can also "hear", "weave", "think", etc.
I put it in the order the eminent scientist have written it. Don't change please what i have said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Why not this:
I t could be this way. But you then have to proceed a bit further.1) Cells exist 2) Cells are exposed to a chemical or mechanical phenomena 3) A reaction occurs resulting in a chemical or mechanical response No need to attribute the cells with "thinking" at all.as: chemical and mechanical phenomena from environment can regulate evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
That still would not require intelligence.
There is here a tedency to oversimplification and using exambles no analogues to each other.That offspring does not rely only to mutation rate in its evolution. It is memory, decisin making, repairing, ineraction between information units,etc. Thinking is clearly a human characteristic, but grades of it is met to animals, even lower ones, as well. For example, if an organism were exposed to some chemical mutagen, the offspring it produced would likely have more mutations than the average offspring of a non-exposed individual. That doesn't require any thinking on anyone's part. That's the chemical result of the exposure. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
The behaviour of chemicals inside the plant's cells are dependent on the laws of physics. They cannot behave in any other way.
Oversimplification and inappropriate using of analogues.A plant has a particular combination of chemicals+cells which when subjected to sunlight will rotate the plant to face the light. If they have that particular combination of cells then they have no choice but to turn to the light - in the same way that ice has no choice but to melt when heated. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
It is all a matter of complexity.
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024