To: ralphkru@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU (Ralph Krumdieck)
Bertvan: Hi Ralph,
You ask how something can be intelligently designed but not pre-determined?
By defining intelligence as merely the ability to make choices, and not the
phenomenon that is experienced by human conscious. Take the evolution of a
culture or an economy, for example. (We have learned that evolved economies
work better than pre-planned ones.) The evolution of such institutions are
the result of many and varied individual actions. Each action is the result
of some conscious choice rather than random. (choice, the opposite of
random.) Regardless of the wisdom of each decision, "intelligence" of a sort
is involved in making all choices. Some choices are better than others, but
wrong decisions are rarely fatal, as would be required by Darwinism.
Some choices are selfish and some are for the benefit of the institution as a
whole. As opposed to Darwinists who regard altruism as a "survival strategy"
which evolved as the result of chance and selection, I suggest that altruism
is as much an intrinsic part of the design of life as self-interest. Life
seems designed with a fine balance between the two. Dawkins' collection of
"selfish genes" would have gone nowhere without altruism. If "intelligence"
is a part of every living molecule, organisms may have gradually designed
themselves. Margulis suggests that the eukaryote cell evolved from an
accumulation of individual acts of symbiosis. I can't imagine that the
evolution of the biosphere took place by any other mechanism than
accumulation of individual choices. Certainly a bunch of biospheres didn't
die off until one arose (by chance) that worked. (I'm intrigued by biologist
Rupert Shelldrake's suggestion that all laws of nature are entrenched
habits.) If, as suggested by the panspermia people, horizontal transfer
plays a roll in creation of complexity, some internal "intelligence" would
still be necessary to organize any new genetic material.
Ralph:
>OK. Does the quality of those choices enter into the picture? Does the
>presence of life intelligence guarantee life-preserving decisions? If
>not, why not? If it does, how do you account for extinctions?
Bertvan
Obviously some choices are better than others, and extinction looks pretty
Darwinian. IDs do not question natural selection as playing a roll in
nature; we question its creative power. There is nothing creative about
extinction.
Bertvan:
>>If the choices were predetermined, that would no
>>longer involve either choice or intelligence.
Ralph:
>I can see why you say it would no longer involve choice but how
>do you rule out intelligence? Intelligence would be required for
>the pre-determination, wouldn't it? Or are you saying the creature
>whose "choice" is predetermined also loses its intelligence?
Bertvan:
A creature whose "choice" is predetermined would certainly have no use for
intelligence, spontaneity or free will.
Bertvan:
>>If the intelligence contained
>>within a single cell is sufficient to organize that cell's maturation into
a
>>complex, multi-celled organism, I see no reason to doubt that same
>>intelligence might occasionally be capable of creating a mutation
>> "needed" by the organism to adjust to its environment.
Ralph:
>If a single cell has intelligence, what would that intelligence need to
>be able to do to create a mutation beneficial to the organism under changing
>environmental conditions? It would have to be aware of the changes in the
>environment. It would have to determine that those changes either require
>a favorable mutation for the organism's survival or that those environmental
>changes have created a new niche that a particular mutation would allow
>the organism to profitably occupy.
Bertvan:
Maybe the only intelligence required would be the ability to recognize which
part of the organism was being stressed. The curiosity and creativity of
living organisms ensures the occupation of new niches. But this is conscious
"choice". I doubt anyone knows how intelligence "works". We experience it
at the conscious lever, but it still remains pretty mysterious IMHO. The
most creative people have acknowledged no understanding of the process.
Bertvan
>>Mutations created and "preferentially selected by life" would be
>>quite different from Darwin's "natural selection" where death of the
>>organism, or inability to produce sufficient viable offspring, does the
>>selecting and the creating. (The latter would be a pretty clumsy,
>>inefficient design for a system as complex as life, IMHO.)
Ralph:
>Well, certainly if "natural selection" is a system designed by some
>intelligence as a way to produce life, it's so loosey-goosey I have
>to question the IQ of that intelligence. Any of us (you, for instance)
>could come up with a better, more efficient way. But we are making a
>lot of assumptions. We value efficiency but the intelligence in life may
>not give a rip. We tend to value life but the intelligence in life
>may not. We find pre-planning to be helpful. The life intelligence
?may opt for complete spontaneity.
Bertvan:
At the moment the theory of evolution is "stressed". Many people see its
weaknesses. Speculations are rampant. Each speculation is the result of
"intelligence" in the sense of being purposeful. (the purpose of relieving
the "stressed" theory). They are far from random. Maybe one of these
speculations will fill a "need". Fortunately, however, the system is also
designed to maintain stability, and conservative forces resist change and
help ensure that any innovation is for the better. Maybe something like that
takes place in nature.
Sure enjoyed it, Ralph.
Bertvan:
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 21 2000 - 13:20:12 EST