Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
I also would like to see a paper a bit newer than the turn of the century.
Why? Is the Lao Tze invalid because it's old?
We know today that many things can "react" to stimuli. A plant will grow towards water, and towards light, but that doesn't mean it has a brain that is "deciding" to grow towards light.
The plant kingdom wasn't included in the article. Because they don't demonstrate the behavior it's describing, it's possible they aren't governed by the same process.
all those statements are incredibly wishy washy though. how does the quoted statement actually define the brain? it does not have a brain in a conventional sense, since it has no neurons. the allusion to emotion is also questionable, since it is a massive extrapolation with no real justification to it.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
Nope, "life" isn't alive, however non intelligent algorithms can produce the appearance of life, yet still just be basic mechanics. As Jet mentioned the comments about emotions seem to be opinion that doesn't appear to be backed up by further studies. So, what is the difference between saying the game of life is displaying what appears to be intelligence, and this study?
No, The Tao Te Ching is not invalid because its old, and neither is this research. But this research is science and not philosophy. In science other people try to repeat your experiment or research to try and validate your findings. As time goes on science gets better and our understanding gets better and thus we better understand exactly what is going on. So a newer report varifying the old research would go a long way to support the claims.
They may not demonstrate the same behavior its decribing, but they do demonstrate behavior. Without further research it could appear that their behavior requires a brain.
Originally Posted by Motus
Are you saying "life" is actually alive?
Why? Is the Lao Tze invalid because it's old?
The plant kingdom wasn't included in the article. Because they don't demonstrate the behavior it's describing, it's possible they aren't governed by the same process.
all those statements are incredibly wishy washy though. how does the quoted statement actually define the brain? it does not have a brain in a conventional sense, since it has no neurons. the allusion to emotion is also questionable, since it is a massive extrapolation with no real justification to it.
The planarian is considered the most primitive life to have a central nervous system, which is composed of a mass of cephalic neurons and a pair of ventral nerve cords. So it in fact has a brain made of neurons. I only used that example because he described it's behaviour with the most picturesque adjectives. If you actually took the time to read the article, you could see other examples of even simpler single-celled organisms doing the same things, which was my original point. Your claim that direct observation being massive extrapolation, is nonsensical.
Nope, "life" isn't alive, however non intelligent algorithms can produce the appearance of life, yet still just be basic mechanics. As Jet mentioned the comments about emotions seem to be opinion that doesn't appear to be backed up by further studies. So, what is the difference between saying the game of life is displaying what appears to be intelligence, and this study?
Your comparing apples and oranges. The game of life doesn't exhibit intelligence at all, let alone emotions, or anything on the level of what was observed of the single-celled organisms. My point still stands that the protista don't possess the level of system complexity required to behave the way they do.
So a newer report varifying the old research would go a long way to support the claims.
The planarian is considered the most primitive life to have a central nervous system, which is composed of a mass of cephalic neurons and a pair of ventral nerve cords. So it in fact has a brain made of neurons. I only used that example because he described it's behaviour with the most picturesque adjectives. If you actually took the time to read the article, you could see other examples of even simpler single-celled organisms doing the same things, which was my original point. Your claim that direct observation being massive extrapolation, is nonsensical.
sorry I got muddled between the conversations on protista and planatians. other than that, my point about the observations being massive extrapolations still stand. there is no evidence. I once looked after tamagotchi when they were in craze, when I worked for a childrens holiday club, and I had all thsese little bits of plastic there, doing only what could be described as displays of emotion when I forgot to feed them or clean up their poo. However I would have no qualms about puttling the battery out, because I don't see them as alive, I have simply carried out standard pattern matching that the human brain naturally does, and ascribed an emotion in an object that clearly has none. Humans are known for pattern matching, and often get it wrong, an example is in cats, where we see certain expressions differently to how other cats see them. (one of the reason cats and dogs fight is in fact because one of the dog body language words if you like for play and have fun, is identical to the cat'S body language for "let's have a fight") My ultimate purpose in these bits of information, i sthat unless justified we cannot really ascribe emotion to these objects, and the articles are massively extrapolating.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
I wonder about my plants sometimes, if they do not have the ability to be able to "think". They do respond, that is for sure. Esp. my vines and morning glories. The way they search for something to climb and how picky they are about what they want to climb. Then when they reach the top and can find nothing else to climb up they turn into a different plant and begin to get real thick. When the conditions are dry, that seems to be when they produce the most flowers. Most any plant will hang in there against unbelieveable odds, untell they have produced seed to reproduce themselves.
Other plants seem to be able to decide if they will be short and bushy, or tall and thin, based on the other plants you put when them. There are plants that will put out a chemical that will kill off the competition so they get to take over the growing space. I have watched plants fight it out, when there was not enough room for both of them to survive. Some plants are very dominate over others, some seem to be a pretty even match for the competition.
The way they search for something to climb and how picky they are about what they want to climb.
phototaxis.
Then when they reach the top and can find nothing else to climb up they turn into a different plant and begin to get real thick. When the conditions are dry, that seems to be when they produce the most flowers.
hydrotaxis
Other plants seem to be able to decide if they will be short and bushy, or tall and thin, based on the other plants you put when them.
more phototaxis and possibly a bit of hydro and chemotaxis
There are plants that will put out a chemical that will kill off the competition so they get to take over the growing space. I have watched plants fight it out, when there was not enough room for both of them to survive. Some plants are very dominate over others, some seem to be a pretty even match for the competition.
evolution does that.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
I once looked after tamagotchi when they were in craze, when I worked for a childrens holiday club, and I had all thsese little bits of plastic there, doing only what could be described as displays of emotion when I forgot to feed them or clean up their poo. However I would have no qualms about puttling the battery out, because I don't see them as alive
Naturally, a nonliving object cannot have thoughts or emotion. If you scratch the case of the tomagatchi, it doesn't recoil and try to escape your clutches; if you place it next to another one, it doesn't drag it's keychain over and have a friendly chat. It changes it's display when you press or don't press the buttons, and nothing more. What the article is talking about is a level of behaviour far beyond that. The utter failure of even the most powerful supercomputers to produce emotion is testament to that fact.
Humans are known for pattern matching, and often get it wrong,
If you see a circle, you can be pretty sure it's a circle. If you see a fight, you can be pretty sure it's a fight. True, the only way to truly know would be to become a protist and live among them, but barring that, I think you underestimate the human's power of reason.
unless justified we cannot really ascribe emotion to these objects, and the articles are massively extrapolating.
They're not extrapolating at all because they are direct observations. Just the fact that they do anything that even resembles such a wide range of deterministic behavior without having any perceptible thinking apparatus, and for no apparent reason, is worth noting. Do you think a human without a brain could accomplish the same feat?
Linear Mode
