|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nature's innate intelligence. Does it exist? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
zi ko writes: Do you understand irony? instead of arguing about semantics and accusing others of doing so, you could answer the topic question (according to my own definition of inelligence)?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 3619 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
No, the examples you gave are not intelligence even under your unintelligent definition of intelligence.
What is described in Swain work is simply the explanation of why two Lincoln Logs can mate and why two Legos can mate but why a Lego and a Lincoln Log will not fit together. No intelligence needed,Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
zi ko writes: Fallacious analogy. The right woul be: If all cars are "intelligent" Laborginis are also "intelligent". And so it goes. You explain the correct information to the creationist, which he misunderstands. You explain the misunderstanding, but he misunderstands that, too. You use an analogy, he misunderstands the analogy. You can't actually discuss anything with the creationist because interpretation of simple English seems to be at the root of the problem. So I don't hold out much hope that this will help, but my analogy concerned the pointlessness of simply declaring words to be defined whichever way you want them defined. The analogy was about the fallacious nature of your chosen approach and had nothing to do with intelligence.
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. I don't know why you're waiting because the answer was in the very message you're responding to. Allow me to quote myself from Message 206:
Percy in Message 206 writes: Whether the position is that everything is intelligent or cells are intelligent, it's just a relabeling of what nature does as intelligent. Since what nature does is, by definition, innate to nature, then by your definition of intelligent nature's innate intelligence does indeed exist. Or don't you understand that, either? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 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 3619 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Isn't it closely my definition of intelligence? There is not only human or supernatural intelligence. There is also rudimentary basic life intelligence and thinking, based on biochemical forces and to my opinion inorganic matter intelligence expressed by universal laws.. You are doing the same thing here as you did in your thread about empathy powering evolution 'somehow'. You could not present evidence or even a rationale that would give anyone the slightest suspiscion that your crank idea is true. 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? The reality is that you want this to be true. You want to pull other people into your conceptual orbit. Ask yourself this: why do you want this to be true? I think you'll be unpleasently suprised with the answer.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined:
|
What i am saying is that light in special situations can affect genome. The thing is that virtually all of those situations are in somatic cells and therefore almost completely irrelevant to evolution in terms of genome modification. In the same way that rearrangements in the genomes of cells in the immune system can be stimulated by outside challenges but are not passed on to successive generations in the germline. 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. The problem as I see it is that you, and Shapiro as well to a large extent, are describing a real phenomenon but confusing the issue by trying to marry it to a word which already has a common and well understood usage which is not readily compatible with the usage you wish to ascribe to it. Your usage puts a very heavy and totally uncalled for teleological thrust into the discussion of cellular mechanisms. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 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 3619 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) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Zi Ko, what, are you so bored you're picking out random messages from last week to reply to? Or are you just catching up on your unreplied-to messages? Did you know there's an "Acknowledge this reply" link at the bottom of each message?
Whatever it is, please stop making a hash out of the thread. You're disrupting the natural course of the discussion. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 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 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
No there isn't such link. Sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
zi ko writes: No there isn't such link. Sorry. The link actually says "You have not yet responded." If you click on it it becomes "You have acknowledged this reply." There's no need to go through your old unreplied-to messages posting one line responses. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024