|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nature's innate intelligence. Does it exist? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3733 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
GDR writes:
The plant's movement is just a result of chemical reactions. For example a leaf turning to the sun. It seems to me that stored intelligence such as that would be considered innate intelligence. When you move your hand near a fire, your cells do not think "I'd better tell the brain it is warm!": instead the damaged cells react chemically to the heat which, in turn, sends an electro-chemical signal to the brain.Their behaviour is as regular and predictable as the motion of a newton's cradle - no intelligence required. The only thing that controls the chemical reactions are chemical laws/laws of physics.Once certain conditions are met, the cells have no choice but to react in specific ways. If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
jar writes: What stored intelligence? Memory or information
jar writes: The plant turns towards the sun because of mechanics, no intelligence involved. It is no different than an ice cube melting in the sun. Sure it's mechanics but it take information/memory/intelligence to initiate it. It's a bit like us pulling our hand away from a hot burner. It's instinctive and it's mechanical but it took information/memory/intelligence to initiate the act.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Panda writes: The plant's movement is just a result of chemical reactions.When you move your hand near a fire, your cells do not think "I'd better tell the brain it is warm!": instead the damaged cells react chemically to the heat which, in turn, sends an electro-chemical signal to the brain. Their behaviour is as regular and predictable as the motion of a newton's cradle - no intelligence required. The only thing that controls the chemical reactions are chemical laws/laws of physics.Once certain conditions are met, the cells have no choice but to react in specific ways. I replied to jar brfore seeing your reply. I agree that it isn't active intelliegence but it seems to me that a plant or my hand requires stored information or intelligence to react. A dead leaf doesn't turn towards the sun as the information has been lost. It seems to me that the chemical reaction and the electro-chemical signal that you mentioned required stored information in the living cells of the plant to behave the way they do. By the way, you're up late. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Utter crap.
No it does not take information/memory/intelligence to initiate it. And your example of pulling a hand away from hot surface is NOT similar. The plant cannot decide to turn away from the sun. There is no "learned response". There is no "memory" involved. There is no "information" in any sense that might be even vaguely related to intelligence. The plant turning to face the sun is simple mechanics with NO decisions involved.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3733 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
GDR writes:
The behaviour of chemicals inside the plant's cells are dependent on the laws of physics. They cannot behave in any other way. I agree that it isn't active intelliegence but it seems to me that a plant or my hand requires stored information or intelligence to reactA 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. GDR writes:
This is because the chemical reactions have finished. A dead leaf doesn't turn towards the sun as the information has been lost. Think of it like paper: you can't burn paper twice. The fire changes the paper chemically and it cannot be re-burnt. A dead leaf is similar - it has changed chemically and can no longer turn to the light. GDR writes:
But it is just a chemical reaction. It seems to me that the chemical reaction and the electro-chemical signal that you mentioned required stored information in the living cells of the plant to behave the way they do.If you stretch an elastic band and then release it, it will return to its original length. Do you think that is because of stored information? Or is it just the unavoidable behaviour of rubber due to its chemical composition? GDR writes:
I only need 4-5 hours of sleep. By the way, you're up late.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: |
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 3640 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
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. It's not oversimplification. It's just reality. You are suggesting mechanisms and abilities within cells when there is no evidence that such is present and no need for them to be present to accurately describe what is happening.
Thinking is clearly a human characteristic, but grades of it is met to animals, even lower ones, as well. Yes, but we aren't talking about pigs or dolphins. We are talking about individual cells. There's no evidence that my (however many) skin cells are each involved in independent thought.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Thanks Panda
Frankly even after googling around I don't understand the subject anywhere near well enough to debate you so if you don't mind I'll just ask another question. My understanding is that the human body changes every cell in that body at least once every 7 years. (Which begs the question who is the real me. ) This being the case then I assume that replacement cells require information gathered from outgoing cells to perform their required function in the body. Wouldn't that constitute information or stored intelligence? CheersEverybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
This being the case then I assume that replacement cells require information gathered from outgoing cells to perform their required function in the body. Wouldn't that constitute information or stored intelligence? Information and intelligence are 2 very different things and the idea that the former requires the latter is a pernicious assumption of ID arguments (see Gitt Information for a particularly blatant example). The sort of information you are talking about is in 2 places, one is in the stem cell populations which produce new cells and the other is in the environment in which the cell develops. The stem cell already has an accumulation of information in the form of epigenetic changes to its genome which reflect its developmental history. On top of this the daughter cell will develop its own individual developmental history as it progresses towards final differentiation and the environmental signals from surrounding cells/tissues will principally define that. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I think what he is trying to say is that a cell, although it doesn’t have intelligence of its own, (although I don’t know why he started talking about a cell seeing), does have intelligence built into its function. Nope. He really is talking about a cell having intelligence. In a previous thread he was talking about exactly the same thing but using the word empathy.
For example a leaf turning to the sun. It seems to me that stored intelligence such as that would be considered innate intelligence. This is a purely chemical reaction; mediated by light levels, not mediated by intelligence. Edited by Larni, : Second [qs]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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3733 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
zi ko writes:
Since you seem reluctant or unable to explain or support your statement, I will simply assume the opposite position: Oversimplification and inappropriate using of analogues.No, it is not an oversimplification and inappropriate using of analogues. If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3733 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
GDR writes:
I am a long way from being an expert. Frankly even after googling around I don't understand the subject anywhere near well enough to debate you so if you don't mind I'll just ask another question. I think I might simply have a couple more years of googling than you. GDR writes:
Different cells change at different speeds. My understanding is that the human body changes every cell in that body at least once every 7 years. (Which begs the question who is the real me. )From what I have read, cerebral cortex neurons are the only cells never replaced - so they would seem a prime candidate for being the real you. GDR writes:
As pointed out by Wounded King (above), information and intelligence are not the same. This being the case then I assume that replacement cells require information gathered from outgoing cells to perform their required function in the body. Wouldn't that constitute information or stored intelligence? Books contain information, but we would never consider them intelligent. Cells can be created by a parent cell dividing into 2 daughter cells (these are duplicates of the parent cell) or by a stem cell dividing into 2 daughter cells (which are not identical to the stem cell).The parent cell uses itself as a template for creating its 2 daughter cells. I bow to WK's more learned description of where the stem cell gets it template from. To expand a bit on 'information', it is very easy to confuse what we consider to be information and actually knowing something.The soil in my garden is quite acidic. This is information. But the plants don't know it is acidic. They don't know if they can or can't grow there. A seed lands on my garden and either successfully grows or dies. The plant doesn't know the information that the soil is acidic - it just reacts chemically to the acid in the soil. There is no intelligence telling the plant to die - it is just a simple chemical reaction. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Panda writes: The behaviour of chemicals inside the plant's cells are dependent on the laws of physics. They cannot behave in any other way. 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. I think ziko is playing a game of definitional dimwittedness of epic proprtions. But having said that.....I am going to ask a devils advocate question that you can choose to pursue or ignore as you see fit. Are brain cells any different to what you have described above? Don't they obey the laws of physics? Can they behave in any other way? If NOT being restricted by these things is the criteria for "intelligence" then can we really say that our brains, and thus we, are "intelligent"....?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ziko writes: Thinking is clearly a human characteristic, but grades of it is met to animals, even lower ones, as well. OK. But to "think" requires a brain of some sort does it not? In what sense do cells "think".....?Is my computer "thinking" as it responds to my keyboard inputs? Are pebbles "thinking" as they respond to gravity or any other forces applied to them? If you are going to say that cells "think" then you need to provide some sort of dividing line between that which "thinks" and that which doesn't and explain your reasons for drawing that boundary.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024