|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nature's innate intelligence. Does it exist? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
But rocks and clouds are intelligent in the way that you perceive it, yes? Using your definition of 'intelligence', everything (including rocks and clouds) is 'intelligent', yes? Yes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Instinct evolves in the same way that all characteristics of life evolve, through genomic change driven by the remixing of existing alleles (via conjugation in asexual species) and by mutations, all filtered by natural selection.
It seems to me your theory is very poor to explain the comlexities of instincts. I am curious. is there an y evidence that a mutation has coused a specific instinct change? Or is there any special genome loci that directly correlates with a particular instinct?
A long-term domestication experiment with foxes in the Soviet Union revealed that over just a few generations wild foxes will become tame and and much more dog-like in their behavior, even wagging their tails. It apparently doesn't take very much selection to change instinctual behavior.
Your experiment proves the exact opposit! That learning is a powerful way to evolution. Was there any any mutation and so any evidenced genome change in the foxes? Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
What you now seem to have done is change your claim entirely by effectively removing it from being a claim about genetics to being about less well defined forms of heritable traits passed on essentially through cultural transmission, since you seem to discount the idea that there can be genetically determined instinctual behaviours for some reason. There weren't any changes in my claims. They were there all the same brom the very beggining. I don't discount the idea that there can be genetically determined instinctual behaviours .Simply instinctual behaviours are acqired in a diferrent way (through learning) but still tey are inherited.
As yet your theory seems to be entirely redundant, there is no need for it ....
I quote:..Many biologists feel that the foundations of the evolutionary paradigm that was constructed during the 1930s and 1940s . and has dominated Western views of evolution for the last 60 years are crumbling, and that the construction of a new evolutionary paradigm is underway. (Soft inheritance: Challenging the Modern Synthesis Eva Jablonka1 and Marion J. Lamb).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
The idea that there is a more updated form of the modern synthesis arising in no way gives credence to any of your empty word salads.
So there is arising a more updated form of modern syhthesis! That is good news.Maybe now the arguments of some people here hopefully would become more intelligent.You don't seem to have red my work (http://www.sleepgadgetabs.com), so it is understandable you think of "your empty word salads", though unfair. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
You don't seem to have red my work (http://www.sleepgadgetabs.com), so it is understandable you think of "your empty word salads", though unfair. I have. It's a pile of shit.May i ask you to give me the reasons of your opinion? Is becouse is written badly? Becouse you didn't understood it? Becouse you don't agree with what i am saying? Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
It is badly written from the standpoint as a peice of scientific literature.
You are right. Ihave no any relative experience, nor any advisor to help me.
The reason I don't agree with what your points is because you have given me no reason to agree with your points.
I respect your opinion as far as this is not a product of the religious bellief of Darwinism or current theory for its moral implications.It couldn't be any sensical communication in such case, you or any body else must agree.It is as if somebody talks with a Christian fanatic .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
I could be being dense here but stochasticity (lacking in any predictable order or plan) and probability seem a far cry from a conscious decision.
Who is talking about "conscious decisions"?
That cells can act with anticipation and can make regulatory decisions based upon enviromental factors. I can't see how one can get from random probabilities to conscious decision: it in no way follows.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
This is no different than water using its engrained intelligence to sort particles by density and size
Hi Taq,it reminds me saying that everythink has a rudimentary "intelligence"! Do you realise that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
The anticipation in Perkins and Swain's paper is in terms of a predicted future environment based on the current environment. There is no planning or forethought involved, rather the cell has a particular set of responses to a particular set of environmental triggers which tend to precede an environmental change.
Nobody has been talking about "planning or forethought". It seems there is no diversity of opinions about "innate intelligence" in this thread! Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Well, you can't very well have an unconscious decision, can you? The difference between me and you is that you see and criticise things from the narrow human standpoint, while i view things through evolution from the whole animal scale. So decision making in humans being evoluted from rudimentary "decision making" in cells and lower animals is basicaly the same funnction in all cases.So we can have unconscious decisions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
It is your vague approach to the word intelligence that is causing others to take your meaning in various ways.
There is not any vagueness. Just a different approach.Iquote from the O.P: "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. Of course we have then the eternal question to face here: how was this made?" But this is a second level question." Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
I quote from wikipedia:
"Belyaev believed that the key factor selected for in the domestication of dogs was not size or reproduction, but behavior; specifically, amenability to domestication, or tameability. He selected for low flight distance, that is, the distance one can approach the animal before it runs away. Selecting this behavior mimics the natural selection that must have occurred in the ancestral past of dogs. More than any other quality, Belyaev believed, tameability must have determined how well an animal would adapt to life among humans. Because behavior is rooted in biology, selecting for tameness and against aggression means selecting for physiological changes in the systems that govern the body's hormones and neurochemicals" Selecting for flight distance and behavior means that he was selecting for mainly learnt staff. The short time of the experiment imply that there was not any mutations involved. Anyway Belayev have not said anything about it. It is important to note that he talks about hormones and neurochemicals, both of which are related to messaging, particularly the neurochemicals directly lelated to neural system and learning.(rememper my neuro-genic theory of evolution)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
You need to give a reason (not your ridiculous website, please) for anyone one to believe what you assert.
No. I expected it. You have not done this. That is why nobody takes you or your ideas seriously. Does this surprise you?But try to understand this. A man practically living alone with only his PC, poor knowledge of english languadge, no previous studies on the matter, not any kind of help or guidance, trying to formulate a comprehensive new theory of evolution , anew paradigm of it. It is really insane. BUT I HAD TO GET IT KNOWN. I want to believe it will be proved, at least in some aspects, right. Read the work about domestication by Trut et all suggested by W.K in message 286.you will see there where biology and new knowledge leeds to, very near to what i am saying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
And a waste of time, too. This is yet more evidence that lack of competence highly correlates with inflated estimations of said competence.
It was not a waste of time. All thread's comments were very usefull to me to form an idea of what is going on, what the general climate is, and to test some of my ideas and also to change some of them. So i really i am very gratefull to all participants. My revised form of my hypothesis can be found on http://www.sleepgadgetabs.com. About my competence don't hurry to make a verdict.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
I think you are right in general. But i am not a scientist in the field. I have no the means to support for my ideas or even discuss about them,besides a forum like this, where changing ideas is so handicapted because of preconcieved beliefs. So the best thing i can do is to put the questions and expect the real scientists will give the anwers. I hope.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024