If This is Intelligence . . .

[Oncedeceived]

Please indicate where I have accused anyone here of dishonesty

I have explained my error. I should have expressed myself more clearly. I disagree with Ms Margulus, however I also think that anyone who wishes to use her erroneous thinking to support their idea of supernatural forces is revealing the desperation of their argument.

I am aware that it is not Ms Margulus that is attempting such a link - it is you.

Perhaps you don't understand what in the world you are even talking about. You don't seem to understand what claims have been made or what my point is. You seem only to be concerned with religious bias and seem to want to denounce any argument whether it is made by accredited Scientists in peer-reviewed papers or not. You claim desperation no matter what if it is a theist making it.

 

[SteveB28]

Perhaps you don't understand what in the world you are even talking about. You don't seem to understand what claims have been made or what my point is. You seem only to be concerned with religious bias and seem to want to denounce any argument whether it is made by accredited Scientists in peer-reviewed papers or not. You claim desperation no matter what if it is a theist making it.

Fault my thinking if you can:

* Ms Margulis presents an hypothesis that bacteria possess 'consciousness'.

* She makes this assertion on the basis of observing that bacteria react to their surroundings.

* You use this claim to bolster your assertion that bacteria are exhibiting some form of intelligence.

* You further claim that there is some form of supernatural force behind the appearance of this 'intelligence'.

Where do I err?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Fault my thinking if you can:

* Ms Margulis presents an hypothesis that bacteria possess 'consciousness'.

Intelligence.

* She makes this assertion on the basis of observing that bacteria react to their surroundings.

She claims that they react consciously to their surroundings. They do react in a conscious manner to their surroundings so it is no assertion.

* You use this claim to bolster your assertion that bacteria are exhibiting some form of intelligence.

She claims that they are exhibiting intelligence.

* You further claim that there is some form of supernatural force behind the appearance of this 'intelligence'.

I am asking how an unguided, undirected non-intelligent process using non-intelligent matter could give rise to intelligence. It is your contention and your fellow anti-theists that this is what happened. I want your evidence for this happening. Where Bacteria being intelligent came in was that in my definition of intelligence Bacteria would be intelligent. I have supported my claim with peer-reviewed Scientific papers that make that same claim.

Where do I err?

See above.

 

[bhsmte]

.

 

[SteveB28]

Intelligence.

She claims that they react consciously to their surroundings. They do react in a conscious manner to their surroundings so it is no assertion.

She claims that they are exhibiting intelligence.
I am asking how an unguided, undirected non-intelligent process using non-intelligent matter could give rise to intelligence. It is your contention and your fellow anti-theists that this is what happened. I want your evidence for this happening. Where Bacteria being intelligent came in was that in my definition of intelligence Bacteria would be intelligent. I have supported my claim with peer-reviewed Scientific papers that make that same claim.

See above.

Consciousness implies awareness. Are you seriously arguing that bacteria are 'aware' of what is going on around them? Remember, the reaction that occurs is one purely of a chemical nature. You might as well argue that copper sulphate is aware as it grows crystals in its solution.

Desperation.

 

[SkyWriting]

If this is the definition of intelligence and decision making that ID/creationists want to use, then intelligence has been present since the first electron moved about an atomic nuclei.

Intelligent design.....yes.
Right from the idea and design of the first electron.
You are saying it right.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Consciousness implies awareness. Are you seriously arguing that bacteria are 'aware' of what is going on around them? Remember, the reaction that occurs is one purely of a chemical nature. You might as well argue that copper sulphate is aware as it grows crystals in its solution.

Desperation.

I did not write the papers. Are you aware of that? The Scientists that have written the peer-reviewed Scientific papers are saying it.

Perhaps you should write them and tell them that there ideas about Bacteria being intelligent are outlandish and the same as copper sulphate being aware of its solution. However, if peer-reviewed papers such as these have such a poor basis I would assume that they would have been ridiculed by such silliness.

I am not making any claims that are not presented in the papers. No desperation as you so readily attribute all motivations of a theist to.

Why is it you are fine with peer-reviewed scientific papers using the scientific method when it is something you just happen to believe and deny it when it is something you don't like?

 

[Strathos]

I think the term is not clearly defined

 

[Loudmouth]

Can you explain how you view bacteria as being intelligent?

M: If you look up consciousness in the dictionary, it says, "awareness of the world around you," and that’s because you lose it somehow when you become unconscious, right? Well, you can show that microorganisms, or bacteria, are certainly conscious. They will orient themselves, they will work together to make structures. They’ll do a lot of things. This ability to respond specifically to the environment and to act creatively, in the sense that that precise action has never been taken before, is a property of life. Of course, it has to be moving life, or you can’t tell. You can’t tell if a plant is thinking, but in organisms that move, you can tell their intelligence.

Bacterial Intelligence - Astrobiology Magazine
The foraminifera fossil record. Because of the abundance and diversity of the marine fossil record, many scientists many scientists now look to foraminifera rather than dinosaurs and other land animals to record the rate of extinction at the K-T boundary.
Credit: UC Berkeley Astrobiology Magazine: In Microcosmos, you talk about bacterial intelligence. A lot of people have trouble with that concept because –
Lynn Margulis: – Well, they haven’t been to parties with adolescents -
AM: – they tend to think intelligence comes from brains.
LM: I know they do. They’re wrong.
AM: Can you explain how you view bacteria as being intelligent?
LM: If you look up consciousness in the dictionary, it says, "awareness of the world around you," and that’s because you lose it somehow when you become unconscious, right? Well, you can show that microorganisms, or bacteria, are certainly conscious. They will orient themselves, they will work together to make structures. They’ll do a lot of things. This ability to respond specifically to the environment and to act creatively, in the sense that that precise action has never been taken before, is a property of life. Of course, it has to be moving life, or you can’t tell. You can’t tell if a plant is thinking, but in organisms that move, you can tell their intelligence.

This would mean that water is conscious. Water is able to form hexagonal structures at specific temperatures. Ice is able to orient itself to the top of a glass of water.

 

[Loudmouth]

I did not write the papers. Are you aware of that? The Scientists that have written the peer-reviewed Scientific papers are saying it.

Perhaps you should write them and tell them that there ideas about Bacteria being intelligent are outlandish and the same as copper sulphate being aware of its solution. However, if peer-reviewed papers such as these have such a poor basis I would assume that they would have been ridiculed by such silliness.

I am not making any claims that are not presented in the papers. No desperation as you so readily attribute all motivations of a theist to. Also, your references in this thread are not peer reviewed.

Why is it you are fine with peer-reviewed scientific papers using the scientific method when it is something you just happen to believe and deny it when it is something you don't like?

Funny how you ignore the peer reviewed papers when they say something you don't like.

What you are falling for is called "salesmanship". Scientists are trying to "sell" their work by making it look more important than it is. As usual, you see "bacterial intelligence" and stop reading. You fail to see just how mechanistic and deterministic these processes are.

 

[Loudmouth]

She claims that they are exhibiting intelligence.

What are the mechanisms that give rise to intelligence in bacteria?

I am asking how an unguided, undirected non-intelligent process using non-intelligent matter could give rise to intelligence.

Your own definition and examples of intelligence demonstrates that ordinary matter is also intelligent.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oncedeceived,

Not once have you addressed the materials presented in the opening post. If you would, please look at the mechanisms that are described as "intelligent" by one of the references you have used in the past. Please tell us why you consider the mechanistic and deterministic processes described in that reference as being "intelligent".

 

[SteveB28]

I did not write the papers. Are you aware of that? The Scientists that have written the peer-reviewed Scientific papers are saying it.

Perhaps you should write them and tell them that there ideas about Bacteria being intelligent are outlandish and the same as copper sulphate being aware of its solution. However, if peer-reviewed papers such as these have such a poor basis I would assume that they would have been ridiculed by such silliness.

I am not making any claims that are not presented in the papers. No desperation as you so readily attribute all motivations of a theist to.

Why is it you are fine with peer-reviewed scientific papers using the scientific method when it is something you just happen to believe and deny it when it is something you don't like?

Ms Margulis was roundly crticised within the scientific community, I understand, when she expounded these ideas. I wouldn't go so far as "ridiculed", but she certainly seems to have stood apart from the bulk of her peers with her stance.

And what peer reviewed papers do you claim I have presented or referred to?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Funny how you ignore the peer reviewed papers when they say something you don't like.

Example?

What you are falling for is called "salesmanship". Scientists are trying to "sell" their work by making it look more important than it is. As usual, you see "bacterial intelligence" and stop reading. You fail to see just how mechanistic and deterministic these processes are.

You make unfounded assumptions, first that I didn't read it and that these Scientists are not being straight in their assessments. I think it is you who ignores or denies the peer-reviewed papers you so much demand if you don't like when they support my position.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ms Margulis was roundly crticised within the scientific community, I understand, when she expounded these ideas. I wouldn't go so far as "ridiculed", but she certainly seems to have stood apart from the bulk of her peers with her stance.

Which is exactly what I said.

And what peer reviewed papers do you claim I have presented or referred to?

What?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oncedeceived,

Not once have you addressed the materials presented in the opening post. If you would, please look at the mechanisms that are described as "intelligent" by one of the references you have used in the past. Please tell us why you consider the mechanistic and deterministic processes described in that reference as being "intelligent".

I have addressed it numerous times using the information from the various authors themselves.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have addressed it numerous times using the information from the various authors themselves.

No, you haven't. Please address the specific mechanisms in the quote in the opening post. In your own words, describe why you think that qualifies as intelligent.

 

[Loudmouth]

Example?



You make unfounded assumptions, first that I didn't read it and that these Scientists are not being straight in their assessments. I think it is you who ignores or denies the peer-reviewed papers you so much demand if you don't like when they support my position.

Notice how you won't even address what I write. All you do is quote other people in place of your own words.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Notice how you won't even address what I write. All you do is quote other people in place of your own words.

'Other people' are the ones that are making the claims that support what I've said.

I said that intelligence gives rise to intelligence and there is no evidence for an unguided, unplanned, and non-intelligent process giving rise to intelligence from non-intelligent matter. I claimed that Bacteria are considered intelligent. I've supported that claim with the sources I've presented.

Since the 'other people' are peer-reviewed scientists that have peer-reviewed papers and are the ones making the claims of intelligence it is only prudent that I answer the questions you have asked as they answered in their own words; my words are not relevant to their claims nor their assessment of Bacteria. My claim that Bacteria are considered intelligence has been proven. You can disagree with their assessment, but it isn't relevant to our argument because my claim is supported by peer-reviewed papers by the scientists themselves.

 

[Loudmouth]

'Other people' are the ones that are making the claims that support what I've said.

I am asking you to discuss those claims. You refuse to. Specifically:

If a chemical binds to an MCP outside the cell, how does the inside of the cell get the message? When chemicals bind to an MCP or stop binding to it, it slightly changes the structure of the MCP. It is thought association or dissociation of chemicals to MCPs causes a rotation like a slight turn of a door knob. Depending on if the MCPs are rotated or not changes the activity of another enzyme that interacts with MCPs, a protein called CheA (pronounced, ‘key A’). When CheA is active, it converts two other proteins into an active form, CheB and CheY. Confused yet? When CheY is in its active form, it interacts with the base of the flagellum and causes the flagellum to switch direction of rotation and causes the bacterium to change the direction it is moving. The take home message for the mechanism is this: when the MCPs are not interacting with chemicals (nutrients), CheA and CheY are active, and the flagellum switches rotation to make the cell go in a different direction. Hopefully for the cell, the new direction it is traveling will have more nutrients that will interact with the MCPs and block more changes in direction by CheA/CheY activity.
Loop | How Do Bacteria Make Decisions?​

In your own words, how is that intelligence?

I said that intelligence gives rise to intelligence and there is no evidence for an unguided, unplanned, and non-intelligent process giving rise to intelligence from non-intelligent matter. I claimed that Bacteria are considered intelligent. I've supported that claim with the sources I've presented.

Since the 'other people' are peer-reviewed scientists that have peer-reviewed papers and are the ones making the claims of intelligence it is only prudent that I answer the questions you have asked as they answered in their own words; my words are not relevant to their claims nor their assessment of Bacteria. My claim that Bacteria are considered intelligence has been proven. You can disagree with their assessment, but it isn't relevant to our argument because my claim is supported by peer-reviewed papers by the scientists themselves.

The problem is that you can't even discuss bacterial intelligence in your own words.