Science Fiction

[Edx]

Amebas?

"avoidance of negative stimuli

is not necesarily the same as instinct."
- consideringlily

 

[GoSeminoles!]

Now here is the question for athiest-evolutionists: When you saw those two movies, did you consider the robots to be evil or just superior beings that were part of the natural order and good for the universe as a whole?

When I saw the robot in the first Terminator movie, I thought, "Sara Conner is sooooo screwed."

 

[SamCJ]

None of them!

Single celled organisms do not have a concept of danger, only of what they "like" or what they "dislike". More precisely: single celled organisms only react to chemical stimuli in their surroundings, they are sort of "tasting" their chemical environment. If they "like" what they taste, they will remain where they are or possibly move as long as there's still a good taste. If they "dislike" what they taste, they'' move away, until they again taste something they like.

The words used here cannot be used literally, because single celled organisms do not taste, nor do they have fealings or concepts, they little more than an assembly of biochemical molecules. It requires some specialization to cells to come further than that.

Okay, I will try to rephrase the question so that perhaps I can get a candid and direct response.

I acknowledge that I do not really know the details related to this question. If I am wrong, feel free to correct me gently. I assume that amebas want to survive. I assume that amebas want to obtain nourishment. I assume that amebas want to replicate. From prior responses, I assume that these basic desires and wants of an ameba are a result of chemical reactions occuring in the cell. Now I think I am ready to pose the question: Do scientists know in detail how these chemical reactions result in the "wants and desires" of the ameba to survive, to eat, and to replicate, or have the scientists merely assumed that these "instincts" are a result of some chemical reaction that they do not really understand?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Now here is the question for athiest-evolutionists: When you saw those two movies, did you consider the robots to be evil or just superior beings that were part of the natural order and good for the universe as a whole?

Both. Certainly the terminator was, by our standards, evil, but good and evil are moral judgements, and all science is amoral by nature.

From that POV, the terminator was certainly a stronger, faster, more durable, and probably smarter than humans. of course, for all it's superiority, it still had weaknesses which even an "inferior" creature (humans) could exploit.

A similar case: The Black Plague killed off 1/3 of Europe. Was the plague germ "superior" to us?

For that matter, would you consider a germ "evil"?

 

[gluadys]

I assume that amebas want to survive. I assume that amebas want to obtain nourishment. I assume that amebas want to replicate.

How are you defining "want"? Ameobas do not have the level of conciousness needed to "want" something and make a decision to go and seek it out in the same sense that a human would want a hamburger and drive to Wendy's to get one.

What an ameoba does in the presence of food is respond to its presence by moving toward it and eating it. But this is not a result of thinking "there is food over there" and deciding "I'll go get some". It is an automatic response to a stimulus.

Just like the widening of the pupil of your eye in a darkened room. You don't consciously have to "want" your pupil to widen or have to think "this room is dark, I should enlarge my pupil so I can see better." It happens automatically.

Similarly with replication. At a certain point in the life cycle of an amoeba, a stimulus occurs which triggers the replication process.

From prior responses, I assume that these basic desires and wants of an ameba are a result of chemical reactions occuring in the cell.

It is not so much that chemical reactions produce basic desires and wants. They react to stimuli. i.e. the step of desiring or wanting something is skipped. The amoeba goes direct from stimulus to action. Food is present; food is consumed. There is no intermediate step of desiring the food and then responding to the desire.

Now I think I am ready to pose the question: Do scientists know in detail how these chemical reactions result in the "wants and desires" of the ameba to survive, to eat, and to replicate, or have the scientists merely assumed that these "instincts" are a result of some chemical reaction that they do not really understand?

This wouldn't apply to an amoeba, for the reasons outlined above. But in more complex organisms, the development of instincts is more complex and the reactions to stimuli are more complex. In complex organisms, it would be true that some desires are set off by chemical reactions. You may be unaware of feeling hungry when an aroma triggers the sensation of hunger in you and then you want the food. However, in humans, there can still be a disconnect between the desire and the action. If you are engaged in a fast, you may feel hunger and desire food due to automatic chemical reactions to stimuli, but choose not to respond to the desire. So even though the sensation of hunger is chemically induced--and with it a conscious desire for food--the action is not automatic. This is something that would be incomprehensible to most animals.

Similarly, in both humans and other complex animals, sexual desire can be stimulated chemically, by pheromones, for example. But humans can choose not to respond to the desire. I don't know of other animals who would or could do that.

As for specifics, I believe they are known in many cases but it would take a bio-chemist to describe some of the known triggers of instinctive action.

 

[DrummerWench]

...Now here is the question for athiest-evolutionists: ...

Point 1: Atheism =/= Evolution ("atheist" =/= "accepts evolution"). Please note that many respondants have Christian icons of some flavor. We are "theistic evolutionists*". Not atheists and not creationists.

Point 2: Note that FreezBee put "likes" and "dislikes" in quotes. That's for a reason. As kingreaper pointed out above:

Instincts are a property of the nervous system by most definitions, bacteria work on things on a more directly biochemical levell, they do things, no thought involved, stimulus A through mechanism B results in action C.

(I am no scientist, so the following is very simplified, and may have some inaccuracies.)

Single-celled organisms cannot have "likes", "dislikes", "instincts" or "desires". They have genetic imperatives**. "If chemical X is encountered, turn flagella to move away from X." "If chemical Y is encountered, engulf n number of molecules of Y."

These imperatives are nothing more than the current state of affairs after 3+ billion years of evolution.

The organisms that did not have the genes for these imperatives did not reproduce, and did not pass on their genes. The organisms that survive are the descendants of those with genetic mutations that produce imperatives that enhance (or at least do not impede) survival and reproduction in a given environment.

*refreshes, sees gluadys has responded ... oh , well, I'll post it anyway, I put it slightly differently, and addressed a couple other things*

DrummerWench


* "Evolutionist" I hate that term. I am not an "evolutionist", as if evolution were a religious belief. I am a Christian, and I accept the ToE.

** Or however real scientists refer to them.

 

[Dr.GH]

Do scientists know in detail how these chemical reactions result in the "wants and desires" of the ameba to survive, to eat, and to replicate, or have the scientists merely assumed that these "instincts" are a result of some chemical reaction that they do not really understand?

Yeah, some of them. Similarly we know how to trigger behavior in various multicellular critters. I recall using different "off the shelf" chemicals to cause hydra to stick their tentacles down their gullets, or to pull them out again. This was 35 years ago. The level of understanding has greatly increased since then, particularly in attempts to control the behavior of insects and nematodes as these are crop pests and disease vectors.

But, the amount of effort depends on funding and interest, and so a full "catalog" of chemical=behavior does not, and probably will not exist anytime soon.

 

[SamCJ]

Yeah, some of them. Similarly we know how to trigger behavior in various multicellular critters. I recall using different "off the shelf" chemicals to cause hydra to stick their tentacles down their gullets, or to pull them out again. This was 35 years ago. The level of understanding has greatly increased since then, particularly in attempts to control the behavior of insects and nematodes as these are crop pests and disease vectors.

But, the amount of effort depends on funding and interest, and so a full "catalog" of chemical=behavior does not, and probably will not exist anytime soon.

I saw a chemistry show recently. As I understand, they are now able to explain chemical reactions in atomic level terms. There was much discussion of positive and negative attraction, replacing positrons with neutrons or addiing electrons. My memory of the specifics is poor, but their level of understanding chemical reactions seemed to have advanced immeasurably since I went to school. They seemed to have eliminated the necessity of God micro-managing things to accomplish the reaction.

You saw results occur from certain stimuli. Were you able to explain the results at the same atomic level that I saw in this chemistry show?

If so, have my underlying concerns for this question ended, or should I next ask a similar question about quantum level of reactions; i.e., do scientists know what causes the positive and negative attractions or is that going to get us into even wierder stuff like string theory?

 

[HairlessSimian]

I saw a chemistry show recently. As I understand, they are now able to explain chemical reactions in atomic level terms. There was much discussion of positive and negative attraction, replacing positrons with neutrons or addiing electrons. My memory of the specifics is poor, but their level of understanding chemical reactions seemed to have advanced immeasurably since I went to school. They seemed to have eliminated the necessity of God micro-managing things to accomplish the reaction.

When did you graduate? 1789?
We've understood chemical reactions in atom terms for many many decades. However, there are no positrons nor neutrons involved in (normal) chemical reactions. That would be atomic and sub-atomic physics.

You saw results occur from certain stimuli. Were you able to explain the results at the same atomic level that I saw in this chemistry show?

Not likely. Biological receptors are largely unknown beasts and difficult to study, given that they're usually membrane-bound and in tiny quantities.

 

[funyun]

Science is based on philosophical assumptions.

Which philosophical assumptions?

 

[Dr.GH]

I saw a chemistry show recently. As I understand, they are now able to explain chemical reactions in atomic level terms. There was much discussion of positive and negative attraction, replacing positrons with neutrons or addiing electrons. My memory of the specifics is poor, but their level of understanding chemical reactions seemed to have advanced immeasurably since I went to school. They seemed to have eliminated the necessity of God micro-managing things to accomplish the reaction.

You saw results occur from certain stimuli. Were you able to explain the results at the same atomic level that I saw in this chemistry show?

If so, have my underlying concerns for this question ended, or should I next ask a similar question about quantum level of reactions; i.e., do scientists know what causes the positive and negative attractions or is that going to get us into even wierder stuff like string theory?

The "modern" atomic theory is from the early 1900s, but solid, irrefutable evidence wasn't available until the late 1920s, particularly results from Rutherford's directorship of the Cavendish Laboratory. (I had to look up the spelling in my old undergraduate chemistry text book. Hehheh, I looked at some of the text I had underlined to study- no wonder I blew the exams, I was sooo far off understanding what was significant for the exam. I only studied what I thought was significant).

The problem in returning the same level of detail in cellular chemistry as we were able to do with "inorganic" chemisrty was not theory, but instrumentation. The first high pressure liquid chromatagraph I had used a column that was huge- a pipe, and we needed nearly a milliliter sample. For most cellular chemicals you could never get a whole uncontaminated milliliter cellular chemistry sample.

Today they can do microliter samples with columns the size of toothpicks, and even single molecule analysis. It blows my little mind. There are still unanswered details in all sciences, but that is a question of time and money.

God does not need to piddle with the details either.

 

[SamCJ]

Which philosophical assumptions?

One scientific assumption is that there exists a physical, not spiritual, cause for everything we observe.

I think there is lots of evidence to support this assumption, but it could be wrong, and it is non-falsibiable. The assumption even more basically assumes that spirits do not exist.

Someone said on this thread that our knowledge of things is "infantile." We somehow say that we can only find 10% of the matter and energy in the universe, and the remainder is in "dark" matter and energy. String theory says that there are 7 dimensions that we are unable to experience. Scientist are continually astounded by what we are learning from our puny efforts to explore beyond our puny earth. Even most of the earth has never really been explored, the oceans, and we are astounded by what new things we are learnig about the oceans.

I think the assumption that there are no spiritual causes, is probably more valuable to mankind than the reverse. Science and religion are definitely at odds because of this assumption, as the popularity and contentiousnous of this forum site suggests. I do not know that any of us has sufficient time in our day, but it may be wise to search for both the physical cause and the spiritual cause.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

One scientific assumption is that there exists a physical, not spiritual, cause for everything we observe.

I think the only argument for an assumption that science is based on is that of empiricism. Other than that, science goes where the evidence leads. Science is atheistic because there is simply no evidence of the existence of supernatural anything. Science has to have evidence on which to base it’s theories. Science remains mute where there is no evidence.

I think there is lots of evidence to support this assumption, but it could be wrong, and it is non-falsibiable. The assumption even more basically assumes that spirits do not exist.

Science does not assume that the supernatural does not exist. Science says nothing about the existence, or lack thereof, of the supernatural. There is no evidence.

Someone said on this thread that our knowledge of things is "infantile." We somehow say that we can only find 10% of the matter and energy in the universe, and the remainder is in "dark" matter and energy. String theory says that there are 7 dimensions that we are unable to experience. Scientist are continually astounded by what we are learning from our puny efforts to explore beyond our puny earth. Even most of the earth has never really been explored, the oceans, and we are astounded by what new things we are learnig about the oceans.

Indeed, the trick is that we need to push forward with our scientific endeavors to actually solve these mysteries. Positing a supernatural cause ends the search. It’s intellectually lazy.

I think the assumption that there are no spiritual causes, is probably more valuable to mankind than the reverse. Science and religion are definitely at odds because of this assumption, as the popularity and contentiousnous of this forum site suggests. I do not know that any of us has sufficient time in our day, but it may be wise to search for both the physical cause and the spiritual cause.

Again, the lack of a supernatural aspect of science is die to a lack of evidence. Think about it. How would we go about searching for evidence for a supernatural cause for say… the birth of a star. If you believe a supernatural entity creates stars then that’s your belief. As a belief it’s unsupported by evidence. If science collects evidence that shows that stars form sans supernatural intervention then science trumps your belief. It has always been thusly.

 

[SamCJ]

I think the only argument for an assumption that science is based on is that of empiricism. Other than that, science goes where the evidence leads. Science is atheistic because there is simply no evidence of the existence of supernatural anything. .

There is evidence. You simply do not find it persuasive. In order of their importance to me some of the are:
1. The existence of the universe. Its enormity suggests to me a causer of immense power.
2. The complexity of functioning things that seem to have purpose. "Random accidents" is not a very satisfying explanation.
3. The apparent innate desire for humans to believe in a supernatural. I suspect that logic has caused you to reject your in-bred instinct, probably because your livelihood recommended that you do so. (Don't get upset with this speculation. It is not meant to be personal. I think the adoption of one view or another is usually dictated by motives that are not entirely obvious even to the adopter.)
4. The Bible and similar documents are hearsay on hearsay, but they are admissible until properly objected to. They might even be admissible as ancient time tested documents despite an objection.

Now, just because I believe there is evidence, does not mean I am persuaded by the evidence that the supernatural exists. I adopt one view or the other on a minute by minute basis. I really cannot tell that which view I hold at a particular time has too much affect on my actions.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

There is evidence. You simply do not find it persuasive.

Yes, there are definitely different levels of evidence. Gifts left under the Christmas tree are evidence that Santa was there. While this kind of evidence is compelling enough for some, I will maintain that stronger evidence is needed before something is accepted as fact.

In order of their importance to me some of the are:

1. The existence of the universe. Its enormity suggests to me a causer of immense power.

Absolutely. If you think that the cause was some bearded dude then the mere existence of the universe is no better than gifts under the tree for use as evidence of his existence.

2. The complexity of functioning things that seem to have purpose. "Random accidents" is not a very satisfying explanation.

Most things only appear random until you understand them. Understanding the driving force behind natural things is very satisfying.

3. The apparent innate desire for humans to believe in a supernatural.

Humans are curious and they fear the unknown. The desire to fill in the gaps in our knowledge is the same desire that drives scientists. The supernatural comes in when a person can’t figure something out. It makes them feel better.

I suspect that logic has caused you to reject your in-bred instinct, probably because your livelihood recommended that you do so. (Don't get upset with this speculation. It is not meant to be personal. I think the adoption of one view or another is usually dictated by motives that are not entirely obvious even to the adopter.)

Not that I can think of. I do computer stuff for a living. Theism doesn’t play a role in my life one way or the other.

4. The Bible and similar documents are hearsay on hearsay, but they are admissible until properly objected to. They might even be admissible as ancient time tested documents despite an objection.

I’ll steer clear of talking about the bible at this point if you don’t mind. The only warning I’ve ever received here is because I was speaking honestly about what I thought of the bible.

Now, just because I believe there is evidence, does not mean I am persuaded by the evidence that the supernatural exists. I adopt one view or the other on a minute by minute basis. I really cannot tell that which view I hold at a particular time has too much affect on my actions.

As I touched on before, there are different levels of evidence. Just remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

One scientific assumption is that there exists a physical, not spiritual, cause for everything we observe.

That is the assumption that science is based on. Science is the search for natural explanations of natural phenomena. If our physical reality was ruled by the spiritual realm then science would have made zero progress. However, science has become one of the most spectacular successes in human history. The recent push to get ID and creationism into science classes is nothing more than an attempt to ride the coat tails of science's success.

I think there is lots of evidence to support this assumption, but it could be wrong, and it is non-falsibiable. The assumption even more basically assumes that spirits do not exist.

There is no objective evidence that spirits exist, or a soul for that matter. If there is no objective, empirical evidence for the existence of something then science is not able to investigate it. Science no more ignores the spiritual realm than it ignores the Easter Bunny.

Someone said on this thread that our knowledge of things is "infantile." We somehow say that we can only find 10% of the matter and energy in the universe, and the remainder is in "dark" matter and energy. String theory says that there are 7 dimensions that we are unable to experience. Scientist are continually astounded by what we are learning from our puny efforts to explore beyond our puny earth. Even most of the earth has never really been explored, the oceans, and we are astounded by what new things we are learnig about the oceans.

What method do these researchers, discoverers, and groundbreakers use? That's right, the scientific method.

I think the assumption that there are no spiritual causes, is probably more valuable to mankind than the reverse. Science and religion are definitely at odds because of this assumption, as the popularity and contentiousnous of this forum site suggests. I do not know that any of us has sufficient time in our day, but it may be wise to search for both the physical cause and the spiritual cause.

How do we search for a spiritual cause?

Let me use an example. I think many of us have lost a loved one. While I was younger, and a churchgoer, one of my friends fell very ill. He ended up dying when I was 18. We all prayed, many people even fasted for weeks on end, and yet there was no stopping the cancer. What was the reason why prayers didn't work? It was God's Will, or so I was told. If he dies, it is God's Will. If he lives, it's a miracle and a blessing from God. No matter the outcome, my prayers were supposedly answered.

Another of my recent faves is the jet disaster where everyone made it out of a burning jet in complete safety. The fire was started by a natural disaster, a thunderstorm if memory serves. Was that a miracle, or did those people barely escape God's Wrath? Wouldn't it be a better miracle if the jet never crashed in the first place. (I should cite John Stewart of the Daily Show for the sarcasm)

This is why the spiritual realm, if it exists, is inaccessible to testing. Any outcome is answered prayer. Any outcome is due to spiritual interference. It is a belief supported by faith and personal, subjective experiences.

PS: I am not trying to attack you for being a believer. Personally, religion and spirituality are not for me, but I still think the world is a richer, more diverse place because others do believe.

 

[SamCJ]

How do we search for a spiritual cause?.

Meditation? It worked for Einstein.
The Bible? Some recommend it even for non-believers.
Nature? A lot of people on this site say God is evident there.

PS: I am not trying to attack you for being a believer. Personally, religion and spirituality are not for me, but I still think the world is a richer, more diverse place because others do believe.

Saying "I believe" is a stretch for me. These questions both trouble and facinate me. Generally, I pose responses to a viewpoint simply to trouble others as much as I am troubled. Sometimes I get good responses like yours. However, despite your good response, I remain troubled and facinated. I think I would like to believe one way or the other, but I am not even sure about that. I think I might be best described as a fuzzy minded conservative.

 

[Guywiththehead]

Nature? A lot of people on this site say God is evident there.

A lot of people said the gods' wrath is evident in lightning.

 

[SamCJ]

Yes, there are definitely different levels of evidence. Gifts left under the Christmas tree are evidence that Santa was there. While this kind of evidence is compelling enough for some, I will maintain that stronger evidence is needed before something is accepted as fact.

Absolutely. If you think that the cause was some bearded dude then the mere existence of the universe is no better than gifts under the tree for use as evidence of his existence.

I believed in Santa for a long time and was saddened to learn he was not real. My children believed for a long time, and they too were saddened when I admitted he was not real. They were not saddened that I had lied to them for so long, but because I quit lying to them. Christmas was a lot more fun for me when either I believed or my children believed. I think these are common beliefs and reactions to change. Also, as you suggest, there are lessons here that go deeper than the fact that we can be easily fooled.

Most things only appear random until you understand them. Understanding the driving force behind natural things is very satisfying.

None of the scientists types on this site have given me any argument when I referred to "random mutations." That suggests to me that scientists do not understand why particular mutations occur and the mutations seem to happen randomly and without a known physical cause. Is there any harm in acknowledging in the science classroom that most scientists merely assume there is a physical cause that they have not yet discovered?

Humans are curious and they fear the unknown. The desire to fill in the gaps in our knowledge is the same desire that drives scientists. The supernatural comes in when a person can’t figure something out. It makes them feel better.

I think you are right. Scientists see their system being attacked by IDists. They respond largely by attacking IDists' belief in the bearded Dude who puts the gifts under the tree. People do not like to have their beliefs in bearded dudes attacked. It threatens removal of their comfortable answers, where no better answer exists. Gaps make people uncomfortable. Change is hard for people. So long as they do not attempt to inhibit scientists from searching for a physical cause, your struggle against them may not be worth your effort and may backfire because of their superior numbers. Why not simply fight them if necessary with facts and argument in the classroom? I think you athiests have won that argument here, and you should not worry about it in the classroom. Franky, I do not believe there would be much time wasted on the subject.

Not that I can think of. I do computer stuff for a living. Theism doesn’t play a role in my life one way or the other.

I’ll steer clear of talking about the bible at this point if you don’t mind. The only warning I’ve ever received here is because I was speaking honestly about what I thought of the bible.

As I touched on before, there are different levels of evidence. Just remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Einstein made and extraordinary claim, E=mc^2, with no testable evidence to support it. I have heard that he initially belived it could never be tested. Should it have been banned from the science classrooms before the A-bomb proved it to be correct? String theory is non-falsifiable as I understand. Should it be banned until we develop some means of proving it? What is the difference between 7 unexperienceable dimensions of string theory and a belief in spiritualism? I might be mistaken, but I think Copernicus used only logic to develop his heliocentric theory, and it was not proven until Galileo used his telescope to study it better.

I certainly would fight as hard as anyone against the suppression of searches for a physical cause to everything just because there is a possibility there is a spiritual cause. Perhaps you and other scientists and athiests worry too much. I suspect that most Christians would be satisfied with an acknowledgment by scientists that they have not proven that the First Cause is purely a myth any more than than they have proven that nothing can exceed the speed of light; they simply have not found either yet and they are not even looking for either.

 

[vipertaja]

When you saw those two movies, did you consider the robots to be evil or just superior beings that were part of the natural order and good for the universe as a whole?

Neither "good" nor "evil". Skynet was a defense computer in those movies
designed for the american military. It simply did against humanity what the
bush regime did in iraq...a pre emptive strike. This and the time travel mess
was to protect itself...like it was programmed to do. The builders didn't
realise it'd see them as a threat as well. And of course even then it was
right. We are a threat.

Not only are good and evil merely opinions and individual definitions but an
automaton without much thought beyond military strategy is just a program
that does what it's told to do (exept in case of viruses, though they too in
turn are programs).

I don't think the machine there would be beneficial to evolution either
because I wouldn't imagine it'd do much after everyone has been killed. The
terminators would just stand in guard there for no reason whatsoever til
the network got destroyed for whatever reason. I doubt it'd bother to
"evolve" unless it needed to.