|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nature's innate intelligence. Does it exist? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
zi ko writes: 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? 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?"
MY only reason is only reason. You for some reason think rhetorical statements like this are persuasive? Of anything? --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
zi ko writes: I advise you to read my O.P. You will see there that cells can "see" "measure" ect 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." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
As this threa seems to be a repackaged version of Message 1 I thought I'd quote some of his replies to challenges to his theory of empathy being a driver for evolution.
It could save people some time to select the most appropriate reply for their questions.
zi ko writes: I can't answer about my mechanism. zi ko writes: It is true. There is not any evidence at the moment. zi ko writes: Surely you didn't want to give me the mechanism to my "silly theory"... zi ko writes: My theory (http://www.sleepgadgedabs.com) lacks any evidence. But it is strongly logical, comprehensive, broadly coherent, basically Lamarckian. zi ko writes: It is true. There is not any evidence at the moment .It might be in the future, or it might never be. zi ko writes: I dont mind how you call it, and i am not a biologist to give needed evidence. All i offer is i think common sense. The right pointer is:http://www.sleepgadgetabs.com Maybe I'm being unfair by doing this, but in the thread where I got these quotes from (Message 1) I nearly cut my lungs out in frustration.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
"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. Then why are you even using the word "intelligence"? What are you gaining by picking that word? Why not something like "plasticity"? That would be less confusing and actually make more sense. Nature's innate plasticity. Does it exist? What do you think?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
zi ko writes:
But cells can also "hear", "weave", "think", etc. I advise you to read my O.P. You will see there that cells can "see" "measure" ect So, one question at a time then: Hearing: I don’t give it the original meaning of the word (namely, to the ability to perceive sound by detecting vibrations through an organ such as the ear. What I really mean is: in response to auditory 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 hearing in any traditional sense. If an animal can hear: why can't cells hear?If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
In this thread Message 1 he made the same kack-handed use of the word empathy.
I think he's searching for some non mechanical mechanism for nature being the way nature is. This is all woo being painted (badly) with some sciency sounding words that add up to a word salad.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
In this thread Message 1 he made the same kack-handed use of the word empathy. Ah, yes; I ended that thread with this:
quote: I think he's searching for some non mechanical mechanism for nature being the way nature is. This is all woo being painted (badly) with some sciency sounding words that add up to a word salad. Yeah, you're right. But I still wonder what they think they're gaining by, or why they are, using the word "intelligence".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
[qs]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. [qs]
Zi, it seems like this claim is desperately in need of Occam's Razor.
I read this as: 1) Cells exist2) Cells are exposed to "information" 3) Cells transfer that "information" to other cells 4) Cells think about that "information" and decide something 5) Cells produce a chemical/mechanical response 6) Cells tell other cells what do to Why not this: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. If I apply heat to a piece of paper, it burns. I don't need to pretend that the paper is thinking about the heat and deciding on a response and telling the rest of the paper how to burn.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Intelligence: I don’t give it the original meaning of the word (namely, to choose between contingent alternatives). Then find another word.
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. That is not intelligence. Human intelligence is not defined as changing our genome in response to the environment. No one defines intelligence in such a fashion. Again, find a new word.
I would like to have the opinion of EvC Forum members. You use such a broad definition of intelligence that it is reduced to nothing. According to your broad definition two hydrogen atoms combining with an oxygen atom would qualify as intelligence. In trying to make bacteria look intelligent you have made the word meaningless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 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 3619 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Ihad given the needed definition. What is so confusingabout? The definition you give has nothing to do with the common definition. Its totally different than what people think of when they see the word "intelligence". What are you gaining by using it? Why are you using it? Why not use a different word?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
I already had accepted that man too reacts to environment when he sees ect. Humans reaction to light is not due to changes in their genome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024