Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nature's innate intelligence. Does it exist?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 241 of 303 (639225)
10-29-2011 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by zi ko
10-29-2011 1:46 AM


Re: innate intelligence
zi ko writes:
But instinct being a fix inherited pattern of behaviour? How did evolute? By random mutations? All fine grades of instinct behaviour needed different mutations?
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.
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.
I never said or imply" innate intelligence" replaces God.
I never said you did. The point was that claiming that "the innate intelligence of nature did it" is an empty claim, just as empty as "Pixies did it."
What i say is:
Information driven evolution through neural system, together with random mutations, natural selection...
There is no evidence that evolution is driven by neural systems.
...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.
You've descended into fanciful speculation based not upon observations of nature but upon your own wishful thinking. If you started this thread to see if there are others out there who share your thinking, then the answer is, "Not many here." If you started this thread to see if you could convince anyone to your point of view, then the answer is, "No." With no evidence you haven't a prayer.
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 i division message 219
Have you considered the possibility that you misunderstood WK? Perhaps attempting to describe this gap you can't explain in your own words might reveal this misunderstanding to you.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by zi ko, posted 10-29-2011 1:46 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by zi ko, posted 10-29-2011 12:22 PM Percy has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 242 of 303 (639227)
10-29-2011 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by zi ko
10-29-2011 1:46 AM


Re: innate intelligence
W.K has spoted this gap in somatic cells and germline
But the problem is that it is a gap within your explanation. In normal evolutionary theory there is no problem because we don't expect to see a direct, and certainly not a directed, feedback from the external environment to the germ cells. Which isn't to say that mutagenic environmental factors don't influence mutation rate and type in sperm cells, they do but not through any mediation by the nervous system.
By insisting that such a mechanism exists you have created a gap and you have nothing to fill it with. You have created a problem that didn't previously exist in evolutionary theory for no good reason and apparently with no actual solution in mind.
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.
As yet your theory seems to be entirely redundant, there is no need for it and it fails to do anything rather than pose a non-existent solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by zi ko, posted 10-29-2011 1:46 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by zi ko, posted 10-29-2011 12:41 PM Wounded King has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 243 of 303 (639228)
10-29-2011 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by zi ko
10-28-2011 8:38 PM


Re: innate intelligence
zi ko writes:
rocs and clouds are subjected to physical laws. This makes them arudimentary intelligent, not in the way you percieve it.
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?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by zi ko, posted 10-28-2011 8:38 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by zi ko, posted 10-29-2011 10:13 AM Panda has replied
 Message 245 by jar, posted 10-29-2011 10:15 AM Panda has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 244 of 303 (639234)
10-29-2011 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Panda
10-29-2011 5:06 AM


Re: innate intelligence
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Panda, posted 10-29-2011 5:06 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Panda, posted 10-29-2011 1:11 PM zi ko has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 245 of 303 (639235)
10-29-2011 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Panda
10-29-2011 5:06 AM


Re: innate intelligence
But what about "red bricks"?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Panda, posted 10-29-2011 5:06 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Panda, posted 10-29-2011 1:13 PM jar has not replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 246 of 303 (639246)
10-29-2011 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Percy
10-29-2011 4:03 AM


Re: innate intelligence
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Percy, posted 10-29-2011 4:03 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Percy, posted 11-06-2011 7:24 AM zi ko has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 247 of 303 (639250)
10-29-2011 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Wounded King
10-29-2011 4:16 AM


Re: innate intelligence
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Wounded King, posted 10-29-2011 4:16 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Wounded King, posted 10-31-2011 5:18 AM zi ko has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 248 of 303 (639253)
10-29-2011 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by zi ko
10-29-2011 10:13 AM


Re: innate intelligence
zi ko writes:
Panda writes:
zi ko writes:
rocs and clouds are subjected to physical laws. This makes them arudimentary intelligent, not in the way you percieve it.
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.
So - using your definition of 'intelligence' -
zi ko writes:
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.
- the 'intelligence' of rocks and clouds causes changes in their genomes.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by zi ko, posted 10-29-2011 10:13 AM zi ko has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 249 of 303 (639254)
10-29-2011 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by jar
10-29-2011 10:15 AM


Re: innate intelligence
jar writes:
But what about "red bricks"?
Sorry - I am not familiar with the "red bricks" reference.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by jar, posted 10-29-2011 10:15 AM jar has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 250 of 303 (639257)
10-29-2011 1:48 PM


Please, people: let this thread go into the long night.

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.

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 251 of 303 (639354)
10-30-2011 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Meddle
10-26-2011 9:11 PM


Re: Wow!!
Malcolm writes:
That probably doesn't make it much clearer, but what it's basically explaining is that this 'decision-making' process is nothing more than a series of protein-protein or protein-gene interactions governed by biochemical properties, intelligence not included. This also gives us insight into what he refers to on the homepage when he talks about how cells 'decide an appropriate cellular response'.
My problem is that I cannot see how this "decision making process" governed by biochemical properties is random. Do these protein or protein gene interactions just take place randomly? Do these processes take place in such a manner that the benefical result will not occur? Are these processes completely random and is it true they may never take place in the same manner.?
When I read Swain and Perkins review paper "Strategies for cellular decision-making", I wonder why they use such language, if in fact all of these mutations are not revelant to the final outcome and are in fact arbitrary and completely unpredictable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Meddle, posted 10-26-2011 9:11 PM Meddle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by jar, posted 10-30-2011 7:22 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 253 by Wounded King, posted 10-30-2011 8:43 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 254 by Larni, posted 10-31-2011 4:43 AM shadow71 has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 252 of 303 (639355)
10-30-2011 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by shadow71
10-30-2011 7:11 PM


Re: Wow!!
Do you think that sometimes carbon decides to become a diamond while at other times it decides to become coal?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by shadow71, posted 10-30-2011 7:11 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


(2)
Message 253 of 303 (639356)
10-30-2011 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by shadow71
10-30-2011 7:11 PM


Re: Wow!!
My problem is that I cannot see how this "decision making process" governed by biochemical properties is random.
At its heart biochemistry is a study of stochastic processes. This is not, as you put it, 'completely random' but neither is it deterministic, instead it is probabilistic.
The rates at which interactions occur in a cell is governed by a huge diversity of factors and while one might ascribe to a fundamentally deterministic model philosophically there is no practical way to actually reliably predict the specific behaviour in any particular instance of an interaction. Instead our models of these interactions rely on the fact that cells tend to have substantial numbers of the interacting elements and we can measure the tendencies and average rates of these interactions to a degree. Biochemistry has done this to the point where we have remarkably reliable values for the physicochemistry of many molecular interactions in aggregate, and can even predict the behaviour of new molecules based on physicochemical similarity to known structures.
In the same way the behaviours of the cells when they 'make a decision', to use the teleological language of Swain's paper, is governed by a wide array of variables and is highly dependant on the exact internal state of the cell when it receives a particular environmental stimulus. Small variation in that state can lead to drastically different 'decisions'.
In development some studies have shown that differing cell fates in a population of cells is frequently determined by essentially random noise in the levels of expression of particular genes. For an interesting, though a bit abstract for my taste, discussion on stochasticity in development see Zernicka-Goetz and Huang (2010).
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by shadow71, posted 10-30-2011 7:11 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by shadow71, posted 10-31-2011 8:22 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 254 of 303 (639379)
10-31-2011 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by shadow71
10-30-2011 7:11 PM


Re: Wow!!
You could also think of the behaviour a one person in a building where they work: impossible to predict. But the behaviour of every one in the building obeys certain predictable rules that can be used to predict the behaviour of the group.
Also like in the formation of ice: we can't predict exactly where the first crystal will form but we know they will form.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by shadow71, posted 10-30-2011 7:11 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by shadow71, posted 11-01-2011 7:12 PM Larni has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 255 of 303 (639381)
10-31-2011 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by zi ko
10-29-2011 12:41 PM


Re: innate intelligence
There weren't any changes in my claims.
Well I guess it is just hard for anyone else to tell, given how incoherent and vague your claims actually are, but your opening post made no mention at all of any of the things you are now bringing up about behaviour and instinct.
I quote
You do indeed, endlessly and to no good effect. In this case verging on straight quote mining. 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.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by zi ko, posted 10-29-2011 12:41 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by zi ko, posted 10-31-2011 10:00 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024