Intelligent Design / Evolution (2)

[idscience]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Intelligent Design / Evolution"

 

[Michael]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Intelligent Design / Evolution"

It's just chemotaxis. They respond to the concentration of "food", and swim upstream.

No, it's just "intelligence" according to the authors of the paper that I cited. This conversation is like 'deja vu' all over again.

There are numerous memory systems in nature.

Ya, evidently including one that is small enough to work in single celled organisms.

The adaptive immune response of mammals being a good example. In the case you are looking at it is the stochastic persistence of a proportion of what the authors refer to as "oscillators".



Again, chemotaxis. The slime mold is reacting to the concentration gradient of the food source.

The authors certainly could have used that term had they chosen to do so. Why do you suppose they chose the term "intelligent" to describe "behaviors" involving "anticipation" and "recall"?

Get your science from the journals, not from the newspapers.

I did.

Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 018101 (2008): Amoebae Anticipate Periodic Events

Do you have some particular problem with the American Physical Society Journals and Letters?

You can read the full PDF here:

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

Now I don't actually mind if you broaden the word "intelligent" to include these behaviours, but don't conflate what they are doing with what the human brain does.

What is with all this "me" stuff? I didn't use the term "intelligent" in that paper, nor did I describe anticipatory behaviors involving the recall of cyclical events. The authors did that all on their own. Leave me out of the discussion please.

 

[Greg1234]

Blayz wrote the followng: "It's just chemotaxis. They respond to the concentration of "food", and swim upstream."

che·mo·tax·is (k

m

-t

k

s

s, k

m

-)n. The characteristic movement or orientation of an organism or cell along a chemical concentration gradient either toward or away from the chemical stimulus.



So what do you call the movement of a man towards a watermelon? Or the response of a shark to blood in the water? Or the movement of bees toward the concentration of a flower's aroma?

 

[Jro]

Michael- I think one of our disagreements is due to the definition of 'intelligence.' I've lost your latest reply to me (my apologies), but I believe that you did not offer up a definition of intelligence- I'd still be curious if you are willing to provide one. The definition provided by dimensional analysis (which I believe was the profession of the scientists you've been quoting) encompasses computer programs. If the defining feature of intelligence is the ability to recall and anticipate events, computer programs and ant colonies have been shown to produce behaviors similar to these. I'm curious if you think these behaviors alone are diagnostic of intelligence, or if you believe there are additional features (such as the presence of DNA) that are necessary to call something intelligent.

 

[Blayz]

No, it's just "intelligence" according to the authors of the paper that I cited. This conversation is like 'deja vu' all over again.

You spend large portions of your life ridiculing and hating science and scientists, but one comes along that uses a word you like all of a sudden they are the ultimate authority.

It's not a good look mate.

The authors certainly could have used that term had they chosen to do so. Why do you suppose they chose the term "intelligent" to describe "behaviors" involving "anticipation" and "recall"?

Because they are human beings, prone to the same vices as the rest of humanity.

Let me ask you this: these amoeba respond to an event that doesn't happen. As an analogy. A guy goes to work with an umbrella. 3 days in a row it starts raining at 8:10am and he puts his umbrella up. On the 4th day it doesn't rain. Now would you consider him putting his umbrella up anyway a sign of intelligence?

Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 018101 (2008): Amoebae Anticipate Periodic Events

Do you have some particular problem with the American Physical Society Journals and Letters?

You can read the full PDF here:

I did read the reprint. The authors reduced this so-called intelligent behaviour to a 1 line equation that reproduced said behaviour. You honestly think that "true" intelligence can be reduced to a one line equation?

Blayz wrote the followng: "It's just chemotaxis. They respond to the concentration of "food", and swim upstream."

che·mo·tax·is (k

m

-t

k

s

s, k

m

-)n. The characteristic movement or orientation of an organism or cell along a chemical concentration gradient either toward or away from the chemical stimulus.

So what do you call the movement of a man towards a watermelon? Or the response of a shark to blood in the water? Or the movement of bees toward the concentration of a flower's aroma?

For the watermelon example, please explain what chemical concentration gradient is involved. For the bee/shark example, I don't know off hand, but it seems reasonable that bees can detect scent gradients, and sharks can detect blood concentration. Bees and sharks however have other tools at their disposal, so I would further guess that it is a combination of various abilities.

 

[Greg1234]

Michael- I think one of our disagreements is due to the definition of 'intelligence.' I've lost your latest reply to me (my apologies), but I believe that you did not offer up a definition of intelligence- I'd still be curious if you are willing to provide one. The definition provided by dimensional analysis (which I believe was the profession of the scientists you've been quoting) encompasses computer programs. If the defining feature of intelligence is the ability to recall and anticipate events, computer programs and ant colonies have been shown to produce behaviors similar to these. I'm curious if you think these behaviors alone are diagnostic of intelligence, or if you believe there are additional features (such as the presence of DNA) that are necessary to call something intelligent.

Commands are issued in the case of "computer programs." The same with commanding a dog to perform certain activities or training a group of individuals to perform certain activities on an assembly line. Note that intelligence did not emerge with issuing commands or with training. Regardless of that matter, you seem to be agreeing that the brain is not required for all those activities we see in other animals, but you are now reducing to other articles.

 

[Greg1234]

For the watermelon example, please explain what chemical concentration gradient is involved.

A concentration of watermelons vs houses, trees, mice, etc?

For the bee/shark example, I don't know off hand, but it seems reasonable that bees can detect scent gradients, and sharks can detect blood concentration. Bees and sharks however have other tools at their disposal, so I would further guess that it is a combination of various abilities.

So that's chemotaxis right?

 

[Michael]

You spend large portions of your life ridiculing and hating science and scientists,

Um, absolutely not. I only ridicule astrophysicists and their "dark sky' religion. You don't see me complaining about biologists, or chemists, or electrical engineers or any other branch of science. I completely embrace actual empirical "science" and empirical physics. I only ridicule creation myths and mainstream astronomers.

but one comes along that uses a word you like all of a sudden they are the ultimate authority.

Regardless of the topic (even in astronomy) it's typical to begin the discussion (and continue it) based upon PUBLISHED material. You're free to ridicule the material all you like provided you can find some problem with it, but it's typical to debate published materials.

It's not a good look mate.

That's only because you began with a strawman. I accept the tenets of evolutionary theory, and pretty much every branch of empirical physics. I only ridicule astrophysicists and their emotional and religious attachment to their dark sky entities that do not actually exist and that have no tangible effect on Earth. I love 'science', I just resent any sort of metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. Lambda-CMD isn't tangible or useful 'science' or 'physics', it's a 'religion'.

Because they are human beings, prone to the same vices as the rest of humanity.

Isn't that the point of publishing in the first place? How have you determined that are you personally immune from such vices?

Let me ask you this: these amoeba respond to an event that doesn't happen. As an analogy. A guy goes to work with an umbrella. 3 days in a row it starts raining at 8:10am and he puts his umbrella up. On the 4th day it doesn't rain. Now would you consider him putting his umbrella up anyway a sign of intelligence?

They responded to a cycle of events even after they stop varying the temperature. They don't respond without the prior stimulus.

You're analogy assumes that the amoeba had a way to tell if it was going to rain or not. You're expecting a human level of "intelligence" from a single celled organism? Really?

I did read the reprint. The authors reduced this so-called intelligent behaviour to a 1 line equation that reproduced said behaviour. You honestly think that "true" intelligence can be reduced to a one line equation?

I think their methods were sound, as were their conclusions. If you don't, the responsibility is yours to pick their work apart, PROFESSIONALLY, preferably with a peer reviewed rebuttal.

For the watermelon example, please explain what chemical concentration gradient is involved. For the bee/shark example, I don't know off hand, but it seems reasonable that bees can detect scent gradients, and sharks can detect blood concentration. Bees and sharks however have other tools at their disposal, so I would further guess that it is a combination of various abilities.

I really don't see the point of fixating on more sophisticated behaviors of higher life forms. I simply pointed out what the authors pointed out. Even single celled organisms exhibit 'intelligent' behaviors, including recall capacity and anticipation capacity and behavior modification capacity.

 

[Blayz]

A concentration of watermelons vs houses, trees, mice, etc?

I don't know anyone that can detect the scent of a watermelon at any distance beyond inches, but I guess it could be a factor.

So that's chemotaxis right?

It can be a part of the system, yes. A better example is mosquitoes, which rely heavily on following CO2 and volatile organic compound gradients from the breath of animals. at least until they get close enough for other senses/systems to kick in.

Back when I was doing mosquito borne virus research, we used to trap them by the kilogram using dry ice.

 

[Blayz]

How have you determined that are you personally immune from such vices?

Where did I ever claim to be immune from such vices??

I simply pointed out what the authors pointed out. Even single celled organisms exhibit 'intelligent' behaviors, including recall capacity and anticipation capacity and behavior modification capacity.

Why?

By which I mean, what was the intention in pointing this out? How does it relate to the topic of intelligent design?

 

[Michael]

Michael- I think one of our disagreements is due to the definition of 'intelligence.' I've lost your latest reply to me (my apologies), but I believe that you did not offer up a definition of intelligence- I'd still be curious if you are willing to provide one.

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?

The definition provided by dimensional analysis (which I believe was the profession of the scientists you've been quoting) encompasses computer programs.

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.

If the defining feature of intelligence is the ability to recall and anticipate events, computer programs and ant colonies have been shown to produce behaviors similar to these.

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'. I don't see how including such an example actually helps LESSEN the likelihood that DNA is not 'intelligently designed'. I don't really understand how that line of reasoning and that argument is helping me to see your side of things. 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'm curious if you think these behaviors alone are diagnostic of intelligence, or if you believe there are additional features (such as the presence of DNA) that are necessary to call something intelligent.

The presence of DNA seems to be a requirement for LIFE. I'm really not all that comfortable trying to give you a personal definition of 'intelligent' because then I know for certain that I'm quite possibly misrepresenting the authors intent. They used the term. IMO they should explain it/define it, not me.

 

[Michael]

Where did I ever claim to be immune from such vices??

Well then, when can I expect you to provide me with a published refutation that supports your position?

Why?

By which I mean, what was the intention in pointing this out? How does it relate to the topic of intelligent design?

As far as I can tell, DNA was "designed' from the beginning to house and facilitate the physical expression of awareness and intelligence. That seems to be its SOLE PURPOSE in fact. Based on these sorts of published experiments, as best as I can tell, 'awareness' is simply an intrinsic part of nature, and DNA was "designed' intelligently for the sole purpose of the physical expression of intelligence.

 

[DaneaFL]

This thread is giving me a headache... When the slime builds a telescope to figure out who is up there poking them with a stick, then I'll believe they are "intelligent"

 

[Trogool]

It all depends on how you define "intelligent", which is why I mentioned that I disagree with the authors' use of such a loaded term like "more intelligent" in a scientific paper

 

[Michael]

This thread is giving me a headache... When the slime builds a telescope to figure out who is up there poking them with a stick, then I'll believe they are "intelligent"

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?

 

[Jazer]

This thread is giving me a headache... When the slime builds a telescope to figure out who is up there poking them with a stick, then I'll believe they are "intelligent"

Somone is poking the slime with their stick?

 

[Michael]

It all depends on how you define "intelligent", which is why I mentioned that I disagree with the authors' use of such a loaded term like "more intelligent" in a scientific paper

Then from the perspective of scientific debate it's your job now to provide a PUBLISHED work that refutes these authors claims, or explains the same behaviors without such a "loaded' term. I didn't choose that term, they did, and appropriately IMO.

The mold ADAPTED to it's environment, and SOLVED MAZES!. It's actions demonstrate a primitive type of 'memory/recall' capacity, not to mention an ANTICIPATION response! That's pretty darn 'intelligent' behavior for s single celled organism if you ask me.

 

[Elendur]

(From thread before the split, Michael http://www.christianforums.com/t7637566-101/#post60448468 )
Sorry for taking so long

Well, I agree with you about a couple of things. It's a bad analogy and you were right to warn me.

A "better" analogy would have been a simple bar graph with a scale that starts at zero and goes to infinity with humans averaging about 100, +- 100 on that scale.

I agree, that's a better one.

When we add "much more" to nothing (absolute minimum intelligence observed (i.e. rock)), we must end up somewhere above zero, and probably less than 100. That's the only logical range to be discussing here IMO.

I don't agree with you on this point, it doesn't have to end up above zero. It's much due to the weak definition of 'much more'.
The term 'more' wouldn't necessary result in a positive result with any negative number, the term 'more' doesn't say anything about how much more 'much more' would increase than 'more'.
(Say that five times fast)

Gah! This is really not my strength.

The rest is semantics IMO to avoid the obvious findings of the authors. They use the term "much more intelligent" and explained how they 'anticipated' the future based on past experiences. This whole process actually implies a rudimentary sort of "memory" or "recall", all from the dna of single celled organism that lacks any sort of "brain" as we understand it.

I wouldn't call it obvious, but semantics definitely. It definitely is obvious that some kind of "memory" or "recalling" occurs (especially since they plainly write it themselves), I don't think they discerned the source of it though.

Admittedly, it's hard to explain such a thing if you're emotionally attached to the notion that intelligence and awareness limited to processes of a brain, but otherwise the data speaks for itself IMO. To me at least that would suggest that "awareness" is simply an intrinsic part of what we call "nature" and DNA was simply 'designed' to allow that awareness to manifest itself in a myriad of unique physical ways.

I'm not attached to it at all, I'm just convinced that advanced behavior can be performed by complex (non intelligent) steering (which this could be a case of).


If I follow the definition( intelligence - definition of intelligence by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. )
1. a. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
b. The faculty of thought and reason.

I don't see the paper giving a clear opinion on that fact. It can in a limited sense apply its memory but then I would have to get into where the difference goes between memory and knowledge .




All in all, I don't think I'll change my mind in this specific instance since I don't think the choice of words is enough.
I really think the implication is awesome though, if I would read a study more directed towards this question I would most definitely read it

Thanks for your time hope I didn't waste it.

 

[Trogool]

Then from the perspective of scientific debate it's your job now to provide a PUBLISHED work that refutes these authors claims, or explains the same behaviors without such a "loaded' term. I didn't choose that term, they did, and appropriately IMO.

The mold ADAPTED to it's environment, and SOLVED MAZES!. It's actions demonstrate a primitive type of 'memory/recall' capacity, not to mention an ANTICIPATION response! That's pretty darn 'intelligent' behavior for s single celled organism if you ask me.

My God, I am disagreeing with a vague term they used, not any of their data. This is not a complicated concept. Your ranting that I need to "refute" or "debate" something just because I am expressing my opinion as a writer is over the top.

Incidentally, I would have said "P. physarum display behaviors necessitating information storage and retrieval, beyond that previously reported in Amoebozoa".

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

From the thread before the split:

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

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

They used the word "intelligent", YOU used the word "aware". Two vastly different things.

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'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.