Summations Only

So...If an animal can think: why can't cells think?
If an animal can make noises: why can't cells make noises?
If an animal can hear: why can't cells hear?
If an animal can taste: why can't cells taste?
If an animal can lay eggs: why can't cells lay eggs?
If an animal can weave baskets: why can't cells weave baskets?
If an animal can build a rocket to the moon: why can't cells build a rocket to the moon!Wow: cells can do almost anything! /sarcasm offIf an animal can run at 30mph: why can't you?

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?

I was not quoting you.Here it is again:Hearing: I don’t give it the original meaning of the word (namely, 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?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

The only place that cellular intelligence is mentioned is in the title/heading.He actually seems to be writing about cellular memory (which I saw best described as "It has not been easy to find any article that either does not condemn the idea as total mumbo jumbo, or, while supporting the ideas, still makes it sound like it is mumbo jumbo.").
But memory is not intelligence - my PC has memory.

As in 'military intelligence'?
Then yes, memory could be considered to be stored intelligence.But the document you linked refers to DNA from one human affecting the preferences of another human. (His use of the word 'memory' is kind of metaphorical.)And the intelligence that Jar was asking about was not (if I understood correctly) intelligence as in news/information.

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.

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. This is because the chemical reactions have finished.
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. But it is just a chemical reaction.
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? I only need 4-5 hours of sleep.

Since you seem reluctant or unable to explain or support your statement, I will simply assume the opposite position:
No, it is not an oversimplification and inappropriate using of analogues.

I am a long way from being an expert.
I think I might simply have a couple more years of googling than you. Different cells change at different speeds.
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. As pointed out by Wounded King (above), information and intelligence are not the same.
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.

In my honest (but uneducated) opinion: No - the brain cells are no different. They are affected by external inputs, but ultimately they will always respond in exactly the same way to the exact same stimuli.
If I was to kick you, your response is already established in your brain.(I realised while writing my previous posts that there was a thin line between the bio-chemical machine that is a plant and the bio-chemical machine that is a human. The main difference I saw was the brain's cognitive abilities.) Not being restricted by those things is not the criteria for intelligence.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Wiki: Intelligence has been defined in different ways, including the abilities for abstract thought, understanding, communication, reasoning, learning, planning, emotional intelligence and problem solving.

---

None of those seem to describe a plant turning to the sun. Zi ko's definition of 'intelligence' seems to be 'unknown and unevidenced mechanism'. Yes - sometimes I get complacent and need a kick. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

My answer to this relates to the discussion Straggler and Jar are having about determinism.
I see the brain as a learning computer. You have your initial programming (nature) and the additional programming from external stimuli (nurture).
And, like a computer, when given a specific input you will give a specific output.
But I am finding it difficult to think of a perfect example, because the act of testing someone's response to an input will change their programming and therefore their next response may not be the same.
But to generalise: people always act in accordance with their nature (or programming). All the definitions of intelligence require many cells.
It is a good example of something being greater than the sum of its parts.
The brain is not simply 1000's of unconnected cells - and neurons are unique in how they react to each other.But I don't think that determinism and intelligence are mutually exclusive. You have almost answered your own question. Intelligence is an 'Emergent Property'.
http://www.stewdean.com/alife/emergence.html (This link actually mentions the brain.)
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=2008091406183...It is the same as a 'Y' shaped piece of wood and an elastic band are not - individually - weapons.
But combine them and you have a hand-held catapult.

Our moods are caused by chemicals in our bodies.
They are another form of input to the brain.
They are many many factors that could affect our decisions, but the complexity of the inputs does not negate determinism. I was going to mention that in a previous post, but I decided it would just cloud the issue, as my knowledge of QM could be written on the back of a stamp with a crayon. But, I guess that QM could prove me wrong. I don't really understand this question.
Maybe if you could answer this question for me, I would see what kind of answer you want:
What particular qualities does the wood and the elastic band have that when combined form a weapon?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Yes, I agree with the almost infinite amount of 'inputs'.
But Determinism is completely unaffected by either simplicity or complexity. It is neither more nor less likely in a complex system.
One form of Determinism is Necessitarianism:

quote:

---

Necessitarianism is a metaphysical principle that denies all mere possibility; there is exactly one way for the world to be. It is the strongest member of a family of principles, including hard determinism, each of which deny free will, reasoning that human actions are predetermined by external or internal antecedents.

---

It is worth reading Wiki: Determinism as it goes into a lot more detail than I can. Natural Selection favours apes with brains.
Our brains evolved because mutations occurred to our ape ancestors.
The mutations occurred because of ambient radiation.
Ambient radiation existed because of how the earth was formed.
etc...There is no 'necessity' involved. Neurons can make and break connections to other neurons creating different electro-chemical pathways through our brains. This results in giving us abilities that we class as 'intelligence' (e.g. problem solving, reasoning, learning, etc.).Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

To quote Wiki: (Emphasis mine)

quote:

---

Adequate determinism is the idea that quantum indeterminacy can be ignored for most macroscopic events. This is because of quantum decoherence. Random quantum events "average out" in the limit of large numbers of particles (where the laws of quantum mechanics asymptotically approach the laws of classical mechanics). Stephen Hawking explains a similar idea: he says that the microscopic world of quantum mechanics is one of determined probabilities. That is, quantum effects rarely alter the predictions of classical mechanics, which are quite accurate (albeit still not perfectly certain) at larger scales. Something as large as an animal cell, then, would be "adequately determined" (even in light of quantum indeterminacy).

---

If quantum indeterminacy affected larger events then wouldn't everything be random?
Objects would appear and disappear; pens would fall up or down; nothing could be anticipated.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.