|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nature's innate intelligence. Does it exist? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2933 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 163 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 163 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 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 .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 163 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2933 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 163 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2933 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2933 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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 evolvedbacteria 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 163 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024