|
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: |
Simply declaring that everything in nature is intelligent by definition makes no more sense than declaring all cars to be Lamborghinis. Fallacious analogy. The right woul be: If all cars are "intelligent" Laborginis are also "intelligent". You accuse me i play semantic games, but it is you which avoids to face the real issue and state if you see or not any intelligence (according to my own definition) in nature. I am waiting. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.Intellectual terrorism has not any place in evolution debate forums
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
What he is, I believe, objecting to, is whatever innacurate gloss or misinterpretation you or zi ko may wish to put on Swain's work.
So don't you think it would be usefull if , instead of arguing about semantics and accusing others of doing so, you could answer the topic question (according to my own definition of inelligence)?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Peter Swain writes:
The Swain lab CENTRE for SYSTEMS BIOLOGY at EDINBURGH University of Edinburgh We study how cells make decisions. Gathering and processing information is fundamental to life. In all cells, this ability is conferred by biochemical networks, collections of genes and proteins that interact with each other and the extracellular environment. Information is detected by proteins at the cell membrane, processed by biochemical networks in the cytosol and nucleus, and then used to decide an appropriate cellular response. Such cellular decision-making is at the core of synthetic biology and its failure causes disease: whether it is a hijacking of the signalling network by a viral invader, the uncontrolled growth of cancer, or mistimings in the contractions of individual heart cells. Our work is supported by the Scottish Universities Life Sciences Alliance and the BBSRC. At least show where Swain suggests "Nature's innate Intelligence".
Don't you think decision making and information processing are intelligent acts (according to my own definition of intelligence)? Or at least say straightly whatyou think they are . Intellectual terrorism has not any place in evolution debate forums
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
For example, Darwin did not conjure up the theory of evolution by natural selection and then went looking for the evidence on the Galapagos. He went there, noted the diversity in Tortoise shells and differences in Galapagos and mainland mockingbirds, then he proceeded to develop a hypothesis to explain these facts.
The same as Darwin's and through random or somehow by information directed mutations and other types of genome reactions and natural selection.So what specific examples do you have and how does your 'hypothesis' explain them? Intellectual terrorism has not any place in evolution debate forums
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Humans reaction to light is not due to changes in their genome.
I never have said that. What i am saying is that light in special situations can affect genome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
There is no decision making in a single cell. That is what separates human intelligence and the actions of a single cell.
Really? I quote:
Peter Swain writes: The Swain labCENTRE for SYSTEMS BIOLOGY at EDINBURGH University of Edinburgh We study how cells make decisions. Gathering and processing information is fundamental to life. In all cells, this ability is conferred by biochemical networks, collections of genes and proteins that interact with each other and the extracellular environment. Information is detected by proteins at the cell membrane, processed by biochemical networks in the cytosol and nucleus, and then used to decide an appropriate cellular response. Such cellular decision-making is at the core of synthetic biology and its failure causes disease: whether it is a hijacking of the signalling network by a viral invader, the uncontrolled growth of cancer, or mistimings in the contractions of individual heart cells. Our work is supported by the Scottish Universities Life Sciences Alliance and the BBSRC. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.Intellectual terrorism has not any place in evolution debate forums
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
The fungus does not bid the ant to do anything. There is no decision making process in the fungus. The chemicals released by the fungus cause the ant to act in a specific manner. Neither the fungus nor the ant has any choice in the matter. That is what they do, just like a rain drop has no say in falling from a cloud.
Isn't it an examble of intelligence ? (according to my own definition and Swain, Buhler, Shapiro work.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
They have set responses to set stimuli. There is no decision making process.
This is the beggining of intelligence{ according to my definition) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Not able to supply evidence, not able to supply a rationale, not able to even use reasoned argument: what are we to conclude from your post here?
I agree ebout evidence, but about rationale i doupt. Have you read my work? (http://www.sleepgadgetabs.com)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
No there isn't such link. Sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
You might have a point in terms of single celled organisms, where light (specifically UV) can directly interact with the singular copy of the genome that will give rise to any successors. Once again we are returning to the same issue that all of the 'directed' mutational systems, weak as they are, are only apparently suitable for unicellular organisms and don't appear to have any plausible mechanism by which to operate in metazoa with a somatic/germline division. Probably you find useful what i am saying about this division in my work on neurgenic evolution.(http://www.sleepgadgedabs.com).I quote: At this level all mentioned studies, show that there is a mechanism of information transfer from external or internal (somatic) environment to genome area. Otherwise how chicken could feel stress and how this stress could get known by genome so t o create the instinct of foraging? Also how, in Baldwin effect, could offspring learn new skills? From Wikipedia I quote: The paper (by Baldwin) proposed a mechanism for specific selection for general learning ability. Selected offspring would tend to have an increased capacity for learning new skills rather than being confined to genetically coded, relatively fixed abilities. In effect, it places emphasis on the fact that the sustained behavior of a species or group can shape the evolution of that. These skills have to be learnt by other animals. How could that be done, or how in the first place these new skills could ever be learnt? Obviously this mechanism is served by neural tissue. It is almost self evident...... I think we are ultimately obliged to put in the picture the neural system, as it’s known properties as a messenger, makes it the best choice among other tissues. The somatic/germline division in metazoa calls for a mechanism that connects these two..... I think it is a functional extension and complementary to genome. It has some of the properties of DNA, as f.e to inherit its contents, and get involved in evolution process or even direct evolution. I think it is a functional extension and complementary to genome. It has some of the properties of DNA, as f.e to inherit its contents, and get involved in evolution process or even direct evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
You call the innate intelligence of nature an assumption. You've apparently known all along precisely what we've been telling you since the beginning of this thread: you're making an assumption, an unwarranted one at that. I agree. But my assumptions seem to give rational answers of how instincts were formed,it fills the gap between somatic cells and germline, it explains i my opinion the facts of micro and macroevolution, it fits well with geological findings,e,c.t. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Specially if i dont agree with what you. plain logic!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
According to your definition of intelligence, a rock is intelligent because it decides to fall. A cloud is intelligent because it processes surrounding information to produce huricanes. By your definition, EVERYTHING is intelligent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------rocs and clouds are subjected to physical laws. This makes them arudimentary intelligent, not in the way you percieve it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Okay, at least that's the beginning of an argument. Your arguing that we can't explain instincts, or the gap between somatic and germ cells, or the facts of micro and macroevolution, or geological findings, but that these are all explained if we assume an innate intelligence in nature for which we as yet have no evidence.
I am an evolutionist.But instinct being a fix inherited pattern of behaviour? How did evolute? By random mutations?All fine grades of instinct behaviour needed different mutations? Larni has already mentioned instinct, asking why you reject evolution as an explanation? I would ask how nature's innate intelligence explains instinct, assuming that the explanation isn't the same as "God did it" but with "nature's innate intelligence" replacing God.I never said or imply" innate intelligence" replaces God.What i say is : information driven evolution through neural system, together with random mutations,natual selection combined with nature's strive for life and innate intelligence based on physical and chemical laws (and so diffused and rudimentary) lead to new species appearance. I'm also wondering what is the gap between somatic and germ cells that you think is missing an explanation. W.K has spoted this gap in somatic cells and germline division in message 219 Edited by zi ko, : No reason given. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024