Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nature's innate intelligence. Does it exist?
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 256 of 303 (639396)
10-31-2011 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Wounded King
10-30-2011 8:43 PM


Re: Wow!!
Thanks Wounded King. Your post is an enlighting post for me. I was having a terrible time of trying to grasp what Swain and Perkins were saying. Your explanation makes sense and I will read the Zernicka-Goetz paper and hopefully get a better grasp on what is going on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Wounded King, posted 10-30-2011 8:43 PM Wounded King has not replied

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


Message 257 of 303 (639402)
10-31-2011 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Wounded King
10-31-2011 5:18 AM


Re: innate intelligence
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Wounded King, posted 10-31-2011 5:18 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Larni, posted 10-31-2011 1:57 PM zi ko has replied

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


Message 258 of 303 (639421)
10-31-2011 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by zi ko
10-31-2011 10:00 AM


Re: innate intelligence
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.
As a scientist or deep thinker or even an average thinker, you are a joke.
You write nothing but stream of consciousness bollocks that makes no sense to anyone with a decent education.
Edited by Larni, : Splink

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 257 by zi ko, posted 10-31-2011 10:00 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by zi ko, posted 11-01-2011 7:42 AM Larni has replied

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


Message 259 of 303 (639495)
11-01-2011 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Larni
10-31-2011 1:57 PM


Re: innate intelligence
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.
I will try once more to have an intelligent conversation with you.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Larni, posted 10-31-2011 1:57 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Larni, posted 11-01-2011 10:37 AM zi ko has replied

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


Message 260 of 303 (639509)
11-01-2011 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by zi ko
11-01-2011 7:42 AM


Re: innate intelligence
I will try once more to have an intelligent conversation with you.
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?
It is badly written from the standpoint as a peice of scientific literature.
I understand it all.
The reason I don't agree with what your points is because you have given me no reason to agree with your points.
I'm not going to take your flights of fancy as scientific untill I see some reason to.
The balls in your court.
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 259 by zi ko, posted 11-01-2011 7:42 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by zi ko, posted 11-01-2011 1:25 PM Larni has replied

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


Message 261 of 303 (639526)
11-01-2011 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Larni
11-01-2011 10:37 AM


Re: innate intelligence
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 .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Larni, posted 11-01-2011 10:37 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Larni, posted 11-01-2011 4:19 PM zi ko has not replied

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


Message 262 of 303 (639540)
11-01-2011 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by zi ko
11-01-2011 1:25 PM


Re: innate intelligence
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 .
Is has nothing to do with Darwinsm. If ToE was wrong and creationism was correct your assertions would still have no evidence to support them and no reason for people to believe that they are in any way accurate.
This is where you are going wrong: you believe something. You want it to be right. But you can't say why it is right.
From a scientific point of view your assertions are no different to the assertion that organisms evolve because of their etheric morphic resonance fields acting on girm line cells.
At least with that assertion you could falsify it by de polarising the inversion fields.
Can you even do that?

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 261 by zi ko, posted 11-01-2011 1:25 PM zi ko has not replied

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


Message 263 of 303 (639557)
11-01-2011 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Larni
10-31-2011 4:43 AM


Re: Wow!!
Larni writes:
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.
The paper by Swain and Perkins, and the paper cited by WK by Zernicka-Goetz and Huang seem to me to lead to a more "directed" rather than "determistic" or "equally probable" random response by cells in their decision making.
That of course reinforces my position that their is direction or planning in the process of evolultion, controlled by some type of "intelligence" in the cellular process.
This seems to be in line what Shapiro advocates in his Natural Genetic Engineering system.
And that of course leads to a planned, not purely materialistic process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Larni, posted 10-31-2011 4:43 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Larni, posted 11-02-2011 7:10 AM shadow71 has replied
 Message 266 by Wounded King, posted 11-04-2011 11:44 AM shadow71 has replied

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


Message 264 of 303 (639584)
11-02-2011 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by shadow71
11-01-2011 7:12 PM


Re: Wow!!
The paper by Swain and Perkins, and the paper cited by WK by Zernicka-Goetz and Huang seem to me to lead to a more "directed" rather than "determistic" or "equally probable" random response by cells in their decision making.
No they don't: please show how they do.

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 263 by shadow71, posted 11-01-2011 7:12 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by shadow71, posted 11-04-2011 11:17 AM Larni has replied

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


Message 265 of 303 (639831)
11-04-2011 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Larni
11-02-2011 7:10 AM


Re: Wow!!
Larni writes:
No they don't: please show how they do.
Perkins and Swain conclude that the ubiquitous stocahsticity makes cellular decision making probabilistic. That cells can act with anticipation and can make regulatory decisions based upon enviromental factors.
Zernicka-Goetz and Huang give the example of mouse embyro development, although stocastic, eventually leads to decsions whether the first cell is to become inner-cell mass or a trophectoderm cell. Eventually the mouse embryo balances out and as you know in most cases the mouse embryo eventually becomes a mouse.
Wounded King message 253 writes:
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.
It appears the mouse embryo eventually becomes a mouse and not a cow. That to me seems to mean that although the cellular changes may be subject to stocahastic noise, the end product development into what appears to be a planned or directed end product.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Larni, posted 11-02-2011 7:10 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Larni, posted 11-04-2011 1:49 PM shadow71 has not replied

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


Message 266 of 303 (639836)
11-04-2011 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by shadow71
11-01-2011 7:12 PM


Probabilistic to planned, how did you get there?
That of course reinforces my position that their is direction or planning in the process of evolultion, controlled by some type of "intelligence" in the cellular process.
Hi Shadow,
I don't really see how you have gotten to this from your first paragraph. The fact that there is some direction in evolution is fairly non-controversial provided you accept the constraints of an organisms environment and its past evolutionary history as the directing factors. This is very different from planning however and I fail to see where you draw that conclusion from.
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. All this requires is for the population from which the cell comes to have been subjected to an environment in which such environmental changes have happened before for a long enough time for that environmental behaviour to affect the cell's evolution.
As Swain and Parker themselves describe it ...
Such anticipation is learnt over evolutionary time scales.
...
These costs and benefits will be biochemically encoded into decision-making networks over evolutionary time-scales.
And the behaviour can be 'unlearnt' ...
Using microevolution experiments in which increase in temperature was unnaturally followed by increase in oxygen, Tagkopoulos et al evolved bacteria in which the association between oxygen and temperature was substantially reduced.
They do not posit any intelligence planning the response, instead the stochastic cellular processes of the population are entrained by the environment and the process of natural selection to 'expect' certain conditions to follow certain other conditions and respond accordingly.
The only way I can see this qualifying as any sort of intelligence is if you define the term simply to mean anything demonstrating an ability to respond to its environment.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by shadow71, posted 11-01-2011 7:12 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by shadow71, posted 11-04-2011 1:04 PM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 273 by zi ko, posted 11-05-2011 10:38 AM Wounded King has replied

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


Message 267 of 303 (639849)
11-04-2011 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Wounded King
11-04-2011 11:44 AM


Re: Probabilistic to planned, how did you get there?
Wounded King writes:
And the behaviour can be unlearnt ...
Using microevolution experiments in which increase in temperature was unnaturally followed by increase in oxygen, Tagkopoulos et al evolved
bacteria in which the association between oxygen and temperature was substantially reduced.
They do not posit any intelligence planning the response, instead the stochastic cellular processes of the population are entrained by the environment and the process of natural selection to 'expect' certain conditions to follow certain other conditions and respond accordingly.
The only way I can see this qualifying as any sort of intelligence is if you define the term simply to mean anything demonstrating an ability to respond to its environment.
The important part is that there appears to be learning involved in the process. If a cell can learn a response based upon the enviroment, and also unlearn a response based upon the envrioment that to me indicates some type of intelligence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Wounded King, posted 11-04-2011 11:44 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Taq, posted 11-04-2011 1:30 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 268 of 303 (639856)
11-04-2011 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by shadow71
11-04-2011 1:04 PM


Re: Probabilistic to planned, how did you get there?
The important part is that there appears to be learning involved in the process.
This process is quite different to how humans learn. Obviously, we are talking about different decision making processes. While some scientists may borrow terms from other areas, they are quite clearly using a different definition.
The process that they are talking about is the inheritance of set responses to set stimuli. Set responses that increase fitness are spread through the population at a higher rate than set responses that do not increase fitness or lower fitness. This is a non-intelligent process.
This is no different than water using its engrained intelligence to sort particles by density and size. If you take a mixture of sand, dirt, and gravel and mix it with a large volume of water you will find that the largest and most dense particles will sort to the bottom with the smallest and least dense particles on top. The water uses a decision making process to produce this pattern in the same way that an individual cell uses a decision making process to produce a set response to a set stimuli.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by shadow71, posted 11-04-2011 1:04 PM shadow71 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by zi ko, posted 11-05-2011 10:23 AM Taq has not replied

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


Message 269 of 303 (639861)
11-04-2011 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by shadow71
11-04-2011 11:17 AM


Re: Wow!!
Perkins and Swain conclude that the ubiquitous stocahsticity makes cellular decision making probabilistic.
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.
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.

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 265 by shadow71, posted 11-04-2011 11:17 AM shadow71 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by zi ko, posted 11-05-2011 10:13 AM Larni has replied

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


Message 270 of 303 (639959)
11-05-2011 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by Larni
11-04-2011 1:49 PM


Re: innate intelligence
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.
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.
Who is talking about "conscious decisions"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Larni, posted 11-04-2011 1:49 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Larni, posted 11-05-2011 10:24 AM zi ko has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024