Intelligent Design / Evolution

[Michael]

The definitions are getting screwy here. Let's talk about the facts:

The fact is that the authors used the term "intelligent".

Although the brain has evolved to perform this specific function, information processing is possible without a brain, and organisms as simple as amoebae are much more intelligent than generally thought. For example, the true slime mold Physarum polycephalum can solve a maze and certain geometrical puzzles, in order to satisfy its needs for efficient absorption of nutrients and intracellular communication [1–4]. Thus, from an evolutionary perspective, information processing by unicellular organisms might represent a simple precursor of brain dependent higher functions.

Emphasis mine. You may not like THEIR terms, but they used them and they published them too.

-The mold can problem solve

And they can "anticipate" future events and act PROACTIVELY.

That's it. It's not self-aware, it's not thinking, it's not planning what it's going to do this weekend.

You're actually simply ignoring what they wrote now. They specifically credit them with intelligence based upon their ability to "anticipate" future events and react accordingly.

It responds in extremely complicated ways to stimuli. That's it. So let's stop using loaded terms like "awareness" to equate amoeboid intelligence with the intelligence that is derived from a brain.

Something would necessarily need to be "aware" of the fact it get's cold every so often to REACT to it in advance/anticipation of the next cold event. You seem to be ignoring the NEED for "awareness" for "intelligence" to even exist.

 

[Zaius137]

I agree with your conclusions with the following comment.

In fact humans can program systems to “mimic” intelligent behavior (this fact is not disputable). In fact, we can program machines to learn; this property is not some innate property of the hardware. It is the purposeful act of programming advantageous actions. If we know that random events do not produce complex behavior unless a complex system is available to “assimilate it” we are justifiable in claiming Intelligent Design.

 

[Michael]

In fact humans can program systems to “mimic” intelligent behavior (this fact is not disputable). In fact, we can program machines to learn; this property is not some innate property of the hardware. It is the purposeful act of programming advantageous actions. If we know that random events do not produce complex behavior unless a complex system is available to “assimilate it” we are justifiable in claiming Intelligent Design.

I agree. As I said, DNA has all the earmarks of something that was "intelligently designed" to house and express "awareness" and "intelligence" in a myriad of unique shapes, sizes and forms that are uniquely adapted to thrive in virtually any water bearing environment. It's an AMAZING design.

 

[Elendur]

In fact humans can program systems to “mimic” intelligent behavior (this fact is not disputable).

Wrong, it is disputable

In fact, we can program machines to learn; this property is not some innate property of the hardware. It is the purposeful act of programming advantageous actions.

We can make the program mimic the intelligent behavior learning, it's not actually learning.

If we know that random events do not produce complex behavior unless a complex system is available to “assimilate it” we are justifiable in claiming Intelligent Design.

It's just that we don't know it doesn't.

 

[Diane_Windsor]

"Intelligent Design" is another name for creationism and this was proven in Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District. For those interested in the case I highly reccommend Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul (2007) by Edward Humes. It truly is a fascinating book on the case.

 

[Trogool]

Been there, done that. The authors (real scientists) used the term "intelligence". They cited the mechanisms and the data that they used in their physical experiments to arrive at their conclusions too. They published their work in reputable journals related to this topic, which I handed to you on a silver platter!

You personally never even cited a single scientific flaw in their work, either in their methods or in their data. You never explained what makes you a "greater expert' on this topic than the authors that I cited, or why you disagree with *their* assessment of "intelligence". In short, you're sitting in PURE DENIAL OF PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC FACT just so that you can protect your personal little circular feedback loop of a belief system. Yawn.

http://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2115/33004/1/PhysRevLett_100_018101.pdf

Your paper nowhere states any of the grandiose claims you are making. All they say is that it appears slime molds can store and retrieve information pertaining to stimulus access, not that it integrates, analyzes and ponders that information in any meaningful sense.

 

[Trogool]

I agree. As I said, DNA has all the earmarks of something that was "intelligently designed" to house and express "awareness"

This is DNA. Explain to me how DNA is better suited to being a neural substrate than the brain.

and "intelligence" in a myriad of unique shapes, sizes and forms that are uniquely adapted to thrive in virtually any water bearing environment. It's an AMAZING design.

I'm begging you to read a biology textbook. This is as ridiculous as coming across an ancient Egyptian who was caught in a time warp and is here, insisting that the seat of human consciousness is the heart.

 

[Michael]

Your paper nowhere states any of the grandiose claims you are making.

They used the term "intelligent", not me. What "grandiose" claim did *I* make?

All they say is that it appears slime molds can store and retrieve information pertaining to stimulus access, not that it integrates, analyzes and ponders that information in any meaningful sense.

They also said they were "intelligent". Deal with it already.

 

[Trogool]

They used the term "intelligent", not me. What "grandiose" claim did *I* make?

you are claiming that single-celled organisms are aware.

They also said they were "intelligent". Deal with it already.

Deal with what? You haven't demonstrated that such is the case.

 

[Michael]

I'm begging you to read a biology textbook.

One really pitiful human "behavior" that I've noticed in debate, regardless of the topic under discussion, is that when someone goes into PURE DENIAL of the statements made in a PUBLISHED WORK, it is typically accompanied by personal insults that have NOTHING to do with the discussion, the claims, the published work, or anything related to the topic. They always resort to PERSONAL attacks because that is all the person in denial can actually do. They cannot and will not focus on the MATERIAL, the AUTHORS, the AUTHORS claims, the METHODS, nor be bothered to cite any ERROR in the work being discussed. The information cannot be dealt with.

The only "behavior" left for the person in denial is 'personal attack', or "attack the messenger" behavior. It's a pitiful last line of self defense IMO.

The *PUBLISHED* authors that I cited used the term "intelligent". You're in personal denial of published fact and unlike the authors, you likely have no credentials whatsoever on this particular topic. What can you do? Ya, attack the messenger......

Pitiful.

 

[Michael]

you are claiming that single-celled organisms are aware.

How is that a "grandiose" claim? How exactly does something possess the attribute of "intelligence", or act in an intelligent manner in the absence of 'awareness'?

When are you going to deal with the fact that the AUTHORS attributed the mold with "intelligent" behaviors?

 

[Trogool]

One really pitiful human "behavior" that I've noticed in debate, regardless of the topic under discussion, is that when someone goes into PURE DENIAL of the statements made in a PUBLISHED WORK, it is typically accompanied by personal insults that have NOTHING to do with the discussion, the claims, the published work, or anything related to the topic. They always resort to PERSONAL attacks because that is all the person in denial can actually do. They cannot and will not focus on the MATERIAL, the AUTHORS, the AUTHORS claims, the METHODS, nor be bothered to cite any ERROR in the work being discussed. The information cannot be dealt with.

The only "behavior" left for the person in denial is 'personal attack', or "attack the messenger" behavior. It's a pitiful last line of self defense IMO.

The *PUBLISHED* authors that I cited used the term "intelligent". You're in personal denial of published fact and unlike the authors, you likely have no credentials whatsoever on this particular topic. What can you do? Ya, attack the messenger......

Pitiful.

Could you stop shrieking at me for 10 seconds to actually show where the authors declared P. polycephalum to be intelligent? Jeez...

 

[Trogool]

How is that a "grandiose" claim? How exactly does something possess the attribute of "intelligence", or act in an intelligent manner in the absence of 'awareness'?

You haven't demonstrated that the slime mold is intelligent. In any event, you've been given the answer dozens of times but here it is again: biochemistry.

When are you going to deal with the fact that the AUTHORS attributed the mold with "intelligent" behaviors?

When you bother backing up your claim that they did.

 

[Michael]

You haven't demonstrated that the slime mold is intelligent.

I cited a published work, from CREDENTIALED "scientists" that "claimed" that the mold is "intelligent". You have yet to cite any error in their work. It is not my personal responsibility to 'demonstrate' anything in this case. I am a simple messenger with a published paper for you to deal with (or not). They (not I) attributed the mold with 'intelligence'. Did you find a flaw in their work, yes or no?

In any event, you've been given the answer dozens of times but here it is again: biochemistry.

That isn't the answer they gave us. You can't deal with it. Evidently you can't handle the published facts.

FYI, do you think anyone else noticed that unlike me, you never once produced a PUBLISHED work on slime mold behavior to support your PERSONAL CLAIMS? I've seen YEC argue more effectively, more "fairly" and more honestly than you've dealt with this particular topic.

When you bother backing up your claim that they did.

It's not my job to do that. Intelligence is predicated upon awareness. They claimed "intelligence". You claim "(BS out of your back pocket)". You've show us no published work to support your handwave of a claim, and no credentials whatsoever.

 

[Trogool]

I cited a published work, from CREDENTIALED "scientists" that "claimed" that the mold is "intelligent".

Where?


Do you seriously not understand what I am saying,

Show us where in the paper, and in what context the paper's authors defined P. polycephalum to be "intelligent".

 

[Michael]

Could you stop shrieking at me for 10 seconds to actually show where the authors declared P. polycephalum to be intelligent? Jeez...

I've quoted them now for you several times, including in this post where I bolded and underlined the text for you:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7637566-97/#post60446627

Did you see that word "intelligent" in the quote that I cited? What do you figure the mean by 'intelligent"?

 

[Trogool]

I've quoted them now for you several times, including in this post where I bolded and underlined the text for you:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7637566-97/#post60446627

Did you see that word "intelligent" in the quote that I cited? What do you figure the mean by 'intelligent"?

My God, finally.

See, that wasn't quite as painful as passing a kidney stone, now was it.

Although the brain has evolved to perform this specific function, information processing is possible without a brain, and organisms as simple as amoebae are much more intelligent than generally thought. For example, the true slime mold Physarum polycephalum can solve a maze and certain geometrical puzzles, in order to satisfy its needs for efficient absorption of nutrients and intracellular communication [1–4]. Thus, from an evolutionary perspective, information processing by unicellular organisms might represent a simple precursor of brain dependent higher functions.

I'm not sure I agree they were entirely accurate in their use of the word "intelligence". They were indicating that P. polycephalum has significantly more advanced information processing capabilities than previously thought, but this paper doesn't indicate anything about awareness, actual thought, or analytic processes that are generally considered characteristic of intelligence.

Also, "more intelligent" doesn't actually mean "it is intelligent".

 

[Michael]

My God, finally.

See, that wasn't quite as painful as passing a kidney stone, now was it.

Somehow it's my fault that you can't be bothered to read the material yourself, or my prior posts?

I'm not sure I agree they were entirely accurate in their use of the word "intelligence". They were indicating that P. polycephalum has significantly more advanced information processing capabilities than previously thought, but this paper doesn't indicate anything about awareness, actual thought, or analytic processes that are generally considered characteristic of intelligence.

Also, "more intelligent" doesn't actually mean "it is intelligent".

Wow. I've seen bad and really bad rationalizations used to handwave away published materials in favor of one's own preconceived ideas before, but that was truly a "classic".

I don't suppose you could be bothered to produce a PUBLISHED refutation to their findings, or one that explains the same processes/behaviors without "intelligence"? (however you rationalize it in your head).

 

[Trogool]

Somehow it's my fault that you can't be bothered to read my prior posts?

Yes.

Wow. I've seen bad and really bad rationalizations used to handwave away published materials in favor of one's own preconceived ideas before before, but that was truly a "classic".

I wasn't aware that I was obligated to agree with your fallacious expansion of the author's statements in which you turn "more intelligent" into a grandiose proclamation that slime molds are "intelligent", and "aware" and all this other weird stuff where DNA is the seat of awareness and other such things.

 

[Michael]

Yes.

Figures.

I wasn't aware that I was obligated to agree with your fallacious expansion of the author's statements in which you turn "more intelligent" into a grandiose proclamation that slime molds are "intelligent", and "aware" and all this other weird stuff where DNA is the seat of awareness and other such things.

It's really a pity that you can't handle the fact that the authors attributed the mold with 'intelligence' in the absence of a 'brain' and used both of those terms (intelligence and (lack of) brain). That was the actual "claim" that was under dispute when you walked into this conversation, rather rudely I might add.

Now when can I expect you to produce a PUBLISHED work on these processes and behaviors in slime mold that contradicts the authors findings and supports your claims?