Oh lol, hadn't even thought of that. This should prove entertaining.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It's chemotaxis that is doing this. When neutrophils home to a site of inflammation, do you think they're doing because they consciously decide to? No, there are chemical mediators that direct the process.
I can't help but wonder if that isn't a type of human vanity. We all like to think of ourselves as SO much more "intelligent" than other forms of life that are composed of DNA. Is a dolphin "intelligent" in your opinion?
Maybe we're not as vastly more intelligent than a dolphin as we'd like to think; but obviously there is a difference... and that difference is what we casually call "intelligence."
So, to avoid having to play creationist word games with you, I'll accept that the slime is "intelligent" in the same way one of those little hexbug robots that my cousin plays with are intelligent -they will move toward a light source or navigate a maze.
Call it 'sentience' or 'self-awareness' but that's the quality we are talking about that the slime doesn't have.
You know what we mean anyway... don't play silly semantics games... you are getting dangerously close to the AV/dad zone with tricks like that.
As far as your assertion that anything with "goal oriented software" must be intelligently designed, that's just silly. They can program algorithms that learn complex behaviors based on a few simple math equations. Likewise, DNA, the "language" of life, can obviously allow very complex structures but at it's base it's just the chemical reactions of 4 simple molecules... and unlike the robot, no intelligent programmer is needed for chemistry to work.
So accept that single cells can already learn, interact, reproduce, plan and think but you're simply reducing to other parts?
Yes...
isnt that how dna works?
What about snowflakes? They are complex and beautiful. Did god hand carve each one as they fell from the sky?
You keep using loaded words like 'think' and 'conscious'.
Of course they dont think like humans. Thats a silly question.
Maybe we're not as vastly more intelligent than a dolphin as we'd like to think; but obviously there is a difference... and that difference is what we casually call "intelligence."
From the perspective of psychology, I find it fascinating how many self professed atheist keep comparing these "behaviors" (authors word) to "intelligently designed" systems. That's really my point in a nutshell. DNA has all the characteristics of being "intelligently designed" from the start with the express and sole intend of providing "awareness" and "intelligence" with a way to physically express themselves through a MYRIAD of "forms", all customized to thrive in UNIQUE environments.So, to avoid having to play creationist word games with you, I'll accept that the slime is "intelligent" in the same way one of those little hexbug robots that my cousin plays with are intelligent -they will move toward a light source or navigate a maze.
Well, it may not be "self aware", but it does display a rudimentary "awareness" of environmental factors, and a RECALL capacity, and an ANTICIPATORY capacity requiring rudimentary intelligence of some kind.Call it 'sentience' or 'self-awareness' but that's the quality we are talking about that the slime doesn't have.
FYI, I provided you with PEER REVIEWED and PUBLISHED materials to support my statements.You know what we mean anyway... don't play silly semantics games... you are getting dangerously close to the AV/dad zone with tricks like that.
I believe if you ponder that statement, you'll see that it's ultimately an oxymoron. If it takes 'math' to program in the "behavior" it's going to require "intelligence" to figure out which formulas to use.As far as your assertion that anything with "goal oriented software" must be intelligently designed, that's just silly. They can program algorithms that learn complex behaviors based on a few simple math equations.
Actually it requires water and many other molecules. The communication across the DNA strands only uses those four chemicals.Likewise, DNA, the "language" of life, can obviously allow very complex structures but at it's base it's just the chemical reactions of 4 simple molecules...
You just ASSUMED something that you cannot empirically demonstrate. That's called a "leap of faith". When did you intend to provide me with PEER REVIEWED and PUBLISHED material to support the assertion DNA forms spontaneously, or is that kind of a "dad" comment? You can't demonstrate DNA occurs "on accident." Chemistry alone isn't the issue, it's the DESIGN that's the issue.and unlike the robot, no intelligent programmer is needed for chemistry to work.
You keep using loaded words like 'think' and 'conscious'.
Of course they dont think like humans. Thats a silly question.
Yes... isnt that how dna works? Its just the physical reactions of a few molecules.
When you put them together they form complex shapes all by themselves.
The double helix forms by itself. No guiding hand of god required for the chemitry to work.
What about snowflakes? They are complex and beautiful. Did god hand carve each one as they fell from the sky?
No. The properties of water makes that shape by itself when certain atmospheric conditions are eached.
From the thread before the split:
They used the word "intelligent", YOU used the word "aware". Two vastly different things.
It's chemotaxis that is doing this.
When neutrophils home to a site of inflammation, do you think they're doing because they consciously decide to? No, there are chemical mediators that direct the process.
Hmm. Since the authors themselves did not do that, asking me to do that is a bit like asking the fox to guard the hen house isn't it?You're really going to let ME stick words in THEIR mouth like that?
That would include "intelligently designed" behaviors then, and frankly I'm quite comfortable with that inclusion because I believe DNA *IS* intelligently designed. Either way, it's a sign of intelligence (real time or in the design) IMO.
I would certainly consider ants to be intelligent. They even 'herd' aphids to gather food, much like humans herd cattle. Ants have extremely sophisticated social structures that include a division of labor. I have NO trouble believing that ants are intelligent.
I would call any type of "goal oriented software" an example of an 'intelligent design'.
If you're arguing that single cells are not actually 'intelligent' because DNA is actually 'intelligently designed', doesn't that ultimately prove my original point, it's one or the other or both?
I would not- in our example with ants, the ants are following a simple set of rules that leads to an emergent intelligence. But this does not mean the ants themselves are intelligent, nor does it mean that there was a leader of some sort telling them what to do.
Not really. It's hard to act "intelligently" unless you're "aware" of the environment around you. It's certainly "aware" of the cold cycles and it's proactively responsive to them.
Without any peer reviewed or published support for that claim, it's nothing more than a claim you pulled out of your back pocket. It's definitely a "dad" move.
You're sort of missing the point of the study IMO.
The study does suggest that even at the single cellular level, there is a primitive "intelligence" present. You may may not personally be "aware" of the local conditions throughout your body, but that doesn't mean that none of the cells of your body are not "aware" of that inflammation, and proactively doing something about it. Lots of life forms live inside and outside of our bodies that we are not typically "aware" of.
Do you think the slime molds self-aware? Maybe that's the better question to ask of you.
When you define intelligence as "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills", yes the slime molds can do that. But this is not equivalent to conscious decision making and higher-order functions that brains are responsible for. Slime molds don't "think" when making complex decisions. It's akin to a biochemical algorithm.
PLoS ONE: Collective Irrationality and Positive Feedback
Slime Mold Solves Maze in One Pass... [IEEE Trans Nanobioscience. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI
[The role of phosphoinositide-3-kinase in ... [Biofizika. 2008 Nov-Dec] - PubMed - NCBI
Microtubules are required in amoeba chemotaxis fo... [J Cell Sci. 1994] - PubMed - NCBI
Don't play this game with me, pal. You cannot shift the goal-posts. You didn't ask me for peer-reviewed papers, so no wonder I didn't post them.
Now YOU post the peer-reviewed papers that argue that this "intelligence" requires something other than just biochemistry. I await the crickets.
You posted a study? Did I miss it? All I saw you post was a news article.
I know how neutrophils are "aware" of inflammation -- because of biochemical signaling pathways. Do you argue that it is anything else?
Assuming it gets a "signal", why do anything about it?
The signal (sent from injured cells) interacts with receptors on the neutrophil, which results in cellular changes that result in movement towards the signal. It's programming.
The neutrophil doesn't "decide" to do anything. If neutrophils could consciously override this process if needed, autoimmune diseases wouldn't work.
Michael, are you familiar with much biochemistry or molecular & cellular biology?
Because what I'm arguing is that slime molds are capable of extraordinary chemotaxis, but the process is completely driven by biochemical processes...
and the molds themselves aren't capable of the thought and insight that a brain is responsible for in animals such as us.
I think you're applying a different definition than one I'm used to- I certainly don't think that the scientists from the study would be comfortable with the leaps you're making. :]
Emphasis mine. From my perspective (intelligent design) that's perfectly natural and logical and "predictable'.That's like saying "I found a robot with legs, therefore legs must have been intelligently designed." Neural networks and learning programs were explicitly modeled after biology.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree over the herding of Aphids as an act of "intelligence". It seems like rather sophisticated behavior from something so tiny.See, I wouldn't consider these behaviors intelligent in the slightest. Complex and complicated, sure, incredibly well adapted, ok, but they don't vary by species. At some level they're just programmed in. What I find more interesting about ant colonies is the way that they use simple parts to come up with intelligent solutions, such as pathway optimization. One example is ant colony optimization: Ant colony optimization algorithms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kind of a cool thing that produces complex, 'intelligent' behaviors, but each ant is following a simple set of rules.
That's true of the mold study. I cited a third reference related to balance diets however that really only require and relate to 1 cell.The paper was not about single cells, it was about networks of cells.
I'm arguing that awareness and intelligence are intrinsic to the universe itself and DNA is simply an "intelligently designed" system that is designed to house and give rise to awareness and intelligence locally and temporarily.I'm arguing that single cells are not intelligent, that DNA doesn't code for intelligence, but that networks of relatively simple interacting parts can give rise to more complex behaviors without outside interference or direction.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?