Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nature's innate intelligence. Does it exist?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 16 of 303 (637636)
10-17-2011 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by zi ko
10-17-2011 8:59 AM


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.

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 23 by zi ko, posted 10-17-2011 11:40 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 17 of 303 (637638)
10-17-2011 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by zi ko
10-17-2011 9:45 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by zi ko, posted 10-17-2011 9:45 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by zi ko, posted 10-17-2011 11:53 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 18 of 303 (637640)
10-17-2011 10:21 AM


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


Message 19 of 303 (637641)
10-17-2011 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by zi ko
10-14-2011 11:00 AM


why "intelligence"?
"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?

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 21 by Larni, posted 10-17-2011 11:11 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 27 by zi ko, posted 10-17-2011 12:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 20 of 303 (637646)
10-17-2011 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by zi ko
10-17-2011 9:45 AM


zi ko writes:
I advise you to read my O.P. You will see there that cells can "see" "measure" ect
But cells can also "hear", "weave", "think", etc.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by zi ko, posted 10-17-2011 9:45 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by zi ko, posted 10-17-2011 12:17 PM Panda has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 21 of 303 (637654)
10-17-2011 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by New Cat's Eye
10-17-2011 10:29 AM


Re: why "intelligence"?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-17-2011 10:29 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-17-2011 11:29 AM Larni has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 303 (637659)
10-17-2011 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Larni
10-17-2011 11:11 AM


Re: why "intelligence"?
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:
Oh, I stopped being fair after I realized how pompous and conceited he was... sometime between my Message 101 and Message 235...
They're just not worth being fair to. My time is much better spent laughing at them.
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".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Larni, posted 10-17-2011 11:11 AM Larni has not replied

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


Message 23 of 303 (637666)
10-17-2011 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Percy
10-17-2011 9:51 AM


innate intelligence
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 10-17-2011 9:51 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 24 of 303 (637667)
10-17-2011 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by zi ko
10-17-2011 9:33 AM


Re: innate intelligence
[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 exist
2) 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by zi ko, posted 10-17-2011 9:33 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by zi ko, posted 10-17-2011 12:42 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 25 of 303 (637669)
10-17-2011 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by zi ko
10-14-2011 11:00 AM


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.

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 152 by zi ko, posted 10-21-2011 12:18 PM Taq has not replied

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


Message 26 of 303 (637670)
10-17-2011 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Percy
10-17-2011 10:12 AM


innate intelligence
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 10-17-2011 10:12 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Taq, posted 10-17-2011 12:14 PM zi ko has replied
 Message 153 by zi ko, posted 10-21-2011 12:26 PM zi ko has not replied

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


Message 27 of 303 (637674)
10-17-2011 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by New Cat's Eye
10-17-2011 10:29 AM


Re: why "intelligence"?
Why not something like "plasticity"? That would be less confusing and actually make more sense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ihad given the needed definition. What is so confusingabout?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-17-2011 10:29 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-17-2011 12:13 PM zi ko has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 303 (637677)
10-17-2011 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by zi ko
10-17-2011 12:08 PM


Re: why "intelligence"?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by zi ko, posted 10-17-2011 12:08 PM zi ko has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 29 of 303 (637678)
10-17-2011 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by zi ko
10-17-2011 11:53 AM


Re: innate intelligence
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by zi ko, posted 10-17-2011 11:53 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by zi ko, posted 10-27-2011 10:58 AM Taq has not replied

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


Message 30 of 303 (637679)
10-17-2011 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Panda
10-17-2011 10:56 AM


innate intelligence
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Panda, posted 10-17-2011 10:56 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Panda, posted 10-17-2011 12:30 PM zi ko has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024