Intelligent Design / Evolution

[Trogool]

Figures.

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).

Um, I'm handling it just fine. What on earth are you talking about?

That was the actual "claim" that was under dispute when you walked into this conversation, rather rudely I might add.

I find tears delicious.

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?

Were you expecting me to find one, for some reason? I don't have any problem with them, merely your exaggeration of their claims to support some odd kind of spiritualism.

 

[Michael]

Um, I'm handling it just fine. What on earth are you talking about?

I'm talking about the fact that published authors used the word intelligent, and attributed intelligence to slime mold, and you've yet to produce a published refutation. Do you really think nobody else noticed that bad habit you have of avoiding providing PUBLISHED support of your claims to the contrary?

I find tears delicious.

Cry me a river.

Were you expecting me to find one, for some reason? I don't have any problem with them, merely your exaggeration of their claims to support some odd kind of spiritualism.

I have no idea what you're even talking about. I simply attributed single celled organisms with "intelligence" based on PUBLISHED scientific materials. Either deal with it or not but lay off the personal insults. You're only making yourself look silly since your so called 'explanation" stands in DIRECT OPPOSITION to THEIR claims!

 

[Michael]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7637566-94/#post60441624

Are you joking? Unicellular organisms are not intelligent or aware. They do not make choices...

When did you intend to admit that these statements were false?

 

[Trogool]

I'm talking about the fact that published authors used the word intelligent, and attributed intelligence to slime mold, and you've yet to produce a published refutation. Do you really think nobody else noticed that bad habit you have of avoiding providing PUBLISHED support of your claims to the contrary?

Cry me a river.

I have no idea what you're even talking about. I simply attributed single celled organisms with "intelligence" based on PUBLISHED scientific materials. Either deal with it or not but lay off the personal insults. You're only making yourself look silly since your so called 'explanation" stands in DIRECT OPPOSITION to THEIR claims!

But I'm not opposing them at all, you seem to be under some delusion that I'm disagreeing with them. Maybe you should calm down, log off, have some tea, and come back and re-read this thread.

 

[Michael]

But I'm not opposing them at all, you seem to be under some delusion that I'm disagreeing with them.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7637566-94/#post60441624

Maybe you should calm down, log off, have some tea, and come back and re-read this thread.

Here is how you "started" our little conversation:

Are you joking? Unicellular organisms are not intelligent or aware. They do not make choices...

Your claim DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS what those authors claimed. The authors (plural) claimed that they ARE intelligent and they made "anticipated" CHOICES in their behaviors based on past experiences.

I've seen people try to wiggle out of claiming 'Oh I didn't really say that" before, but come on.....

I hope you find your own river of backpedlling tears quite tasty.

 

[Elendur]

As I see it you two are mainly disagreeing on the interpretation of what they're saying.

I don't think they mention consciousness, and that might be where you're mainly in disagreement.

 

[Michael]

As I see it you two are mainly disagreeing on the interpretation of what they're saying.

I don't think they mention consciousness, and that might be where you're mainly in disagreement.

I don't believe I ever used the term "consciousness". It's not a precisely defined enough term from the standpoint of science to be useful at this stage IMO.

I did use the terms "intelligent" and "aware". I can be "aware" of an external condition (hot/cold/light/dark/other sensory input) and not act in an "intelligent" manner. I can simply choose to do nothing at all in response. In other words, the mold could have been "aware" of the hot/cold cycles, but not done anything "intelligent" in response. In order for any organism to act "intelligently" to it's environment, it has to be "aware" of that environment or some factor in that environment.

Trogool claimed that they were NOT intelligent or aware. The authors certainly used the term "intelligent". He's CERTAINLY WRONG on that particular point no matter how you slice it or dice it or attempt to rationalize it away.

 

[Elendur]

I don't believe I ever used the term "consciousness". It's not a precisely defined enough term from the standpoint of science to be useful at this stage IMO.

I did use the terms "intelligent" and "aware". I can be "aware" of an external condition (hot/cold/light/dark/other sensory input) and not act in an "intelligent" manner. I can simply choose to do nothing at all in response. In other words, the mold could have been "aware" of the hot/cold cycles, but not done anything "intelligent" in response. In order for any organism to act "intelligently" to it's environment, it has to be "aware" of that environment or some factor in that environment.

Trogool claimed that they were NOT intelligent or aware. The authors certainly used the term "intelligent". He's CERTAINLY WRONG on that particular point no matter how you slice it or dice it or attempt to rationalize it away.

Could be I got my impression mixed up
I've read it now (not very thorough, biology is far from my liking) and I don't see them call it intelligent anywhere.

Note that I'm not continuing his argument now, I'm starting my own.

I find the word intelligent twice:

"Information processing is an interesting component of
biological systems. 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."

"Although the results described in this Letter were obtained
in the true slime mold, more primitive organisms,
such as bacteria, can demonstrate intelligent behavior with
a simple mechanism in terms of nonlinear dynamics [16]"


To say that they claim it's intelligent is incorrect, they do claim it's more intelligent than previously thought and demonstrates intelligent behavior.

I just have to get that picky with the wording, since it's that important for the interpretation.
I would like to know if it would be similar to calling something bad better than something worse. (while still being bad).

I hope this post wasn't all over the place, I apologize in advance if it is.

 

[Michael]

Could be I got my impression mixed up
I've read it now (not very thorough, biology is far from my liking) and I don't see them call it intelligent anywhere.

Note that I'm not continuing his argument now, I'm starting my own.

I find the word intelligent twice:

"Information processing is an interesting component of
biological systems. 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."

"Although the results described in this Letter were obtained
in the true slime mold, more primitive organisms,
such as bacteria, can demonstrate intelligent behavior with
a simple mechanism in terms of nonlinear dynamics [16]"


To say that they claim it's intelligent is incorrect, they do claim it's more intelligent than previously thought and demonstrates intelligent behavior.

I just have to get that picky with the wording, since it's that important for the interpretation.
I would like to know if it would be similar to calling something bad better than something worse. (while still being bad).

I hope this post wasn't all over the place, I apologize in advance if it is.

I get the distinct feeling of being in the presence of a lawyer.

Ok, I'll play.

The authors use the term "much more intelligent', not a "little more", or "somewhat more", or even "more". They specifically use the term "much more". Now even if we start at ZERO, and add "more", we have SOME of whatever it might be. Whatever it is, it's now greater than zero. It can be a "little greater" than zero, or MUCH greater than zero, but it's still greater than zero.

 

[Michael]

FYI, I don't get the hang up over the term "aware". In order for anything to act intelligently based on hot and cold cycles, it has to be "aware" of the cycles. As I said, something can be 'aware' yet not act. Something can be aware and not act intelligently. In order to act intelligently to environmental changes, it has to be aware of the changes and also recall those changes.

 

[Elendur]

I get the distinct feeling of being in the presence of a lawyer.

Ok, I'll play.

The authors use the term "much more intelligent', not a "little more", or "somewhat more", or even "more". They specifically use the term "much more". Now even if we start at ZERO, and add "more", we have SOME of whatever it might be. Whatever it is, it's now greater than zero. It can be a "little greater" than zero, or MUCH greater than zero, but it's still greater than zero.

I'm no lawyer, just a regular bloke who's careful with words ( ).

I would need to talk to a linguist, I get the feeling I'm not skilled enough with what were talking about...

Warning, possibly bad analogy coming up

If I would categorize words (unprofessional opinion) I would say that there exists two kinds of words (that are relevant right now), one with a range of results (example good and bad) and one with no range (example here and not here).

Only one category would be able to be stretched along a line (Edit: I know that that line also contain the definitives, Good and Bad).

The worst |---------------|---------------| The best
FILLERFILLERFILLERBadFILLERFILLERGood

Where those relative terms wouldn't necessary put it in the "Intelligent" section if intelligence would fall into this category.

If it were to fall into the category of definitives (no range) I would support you wholeheartedly.

So basically what I saying, I'm uncertain where 'intelligence' falls.

FYI, I don't get the hang up over the term "aware". In order for anything to act intelligently based on hot and cold cycles, it has to be "aware" of the cycles. As I said, something can be 'aware' yet not act. Something can be aware and not act intelligently. In order to act intelligently to environmental changes, it has to be aware of the changes and also recall those changes.

It is possible for something to act intelligently while it still isn't, if the functioning is advanced enough it can be mistaken for intelligence. (I believe that might be why they wrote "demonstrates")

I really like how you think if I hadn't I wouldn't butt in like this

 

[Michael]

I'm no lawyer, just a regular bloke who's careful with words ( ).

I would need to talk to a linguist, I get the feeling I'm not skilled enough with what were talking about...

Warning, possibly bad analogy coming up

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.

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.

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.

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 really like how you think if I hadn't I wouldn't butt in like this

Ditto.

 

[Blayz]

Says who?

#71: Slime Molds Show Surprising Degree of Intelligence | Animal Intelligence | DISCOVER Magazine
'Intelligent' slime able to navigate its way out of maze - Telegraph
Amoebas Always Go for Balanced Diets - Softpedia



That rings a little hollow unless you can explain exactly which stimuli cause them to go out of their way to eat a balanced diet

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

predict the future based upon the past

There are numerous memory systems in nature. 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".

and find their way through a maze.

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

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

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.

 

[BobRyan]

Below are the post numbers of some of the more detailed information regarding the subject of this thread​

CENSORSHIP OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN​

Censored Science, 70, 151,177,184, 6,

EVIDENCE FOR INFERENCE TO INTELLIGENCE AND DESIGN​

Fine tuning of the universe for life, 70

Unlocking the Mystery of Life, 70,
Molecular Machines, 609,
The Immune System, 558,
DNA and Specified information, 32, 42,116,126,467, 559,
Computer Science, 559,
Bacterial Flagellum (Irreducible Complexity) 34,257,574, 796
Intelligent design, 34,227,369,418,
Peer Review Papers, 257,
Predictions, 118,​

Evolution is a Fact?, 759​

Falure of Support for Evolution
Immune System Step by Step? No, 796​

Transitional Whales, 261,295,296

29 evidences for macro-evolution, 508,
Darwin's tree collapsing, 64, 65,101,321,462,
Speciation, 65,467,
List of problems, 171,428,
Overwhelming Evidence Myth, 360,
Anti-biotic resistance, 321,679
Evolution and Medicine Myth, 96,97
Consensus Myth, 97
Abiogenesis, 15
Drug Resistance not due to evolution, 680
The Peppered Myth, 775
Vestigial Organs, 900​

Ooops! Never Mind.​

IDA, Human Missing link, 695,
ARDI, Human Missing link, 710,
Antibiotic Resistance, 679​

MORE INFORMATION​

ID/Evolution blog for up to date commentary on the controversy
IDScience.ca​

Thank you - thanks much -- and thank you very much.

I will check out those pages.

And keep up the good work!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[ChrisBot]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically closed.
The new thread automatically created is here: "Intelligent Design / Evolution (2)"