To: ralphkru@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU (Ralph Krumdieck)
Ralph:
>Thanks, Bertvan. That was very interesting but I want to stick with your
>theory, if that's OK? Are you then defining your "cell intelligence" to
>mean the ability of the cell to make decisions? That's what it sounds
>like.
Bertvan:
You are relentless. So far each time, after some thought, I've really
appreciated your persistence. I think any definition of intelligence has to
include the ability to make choices. (Isn't that the same as making
decisions?)
Ralph:
>Natural selection seems like a trial and error process, with some degree
>of feedback. On the other end, a miraculous creation would seem to get
>things right, first time, given the supernatural traits of the creator.
>Do you think your "cell intelligence" and its creative powers falls
>closer to natural selection or a supernatural creation? And why? You
>seem to be saying here that the "cell intelligence" could make bad
>decisions.
Bertvan:
Where is the feedback in natural selection? "Cell intelligence" as a
mechanism of evolution would be the opposite of natural selection. If
natural selection were the mechanism of creating complexity, death of the
organism is supposed to be the creative force, rather than any intelligent
choice exercised by nature. If you want to call it "supernatural creation",
that might be only because we label something supernatural when we don't
understand it. At one time the idea of antibodies patrolling the blood
stream looking for invaders to attack might have sounded "miraculous". We
now know something of the process, but not enough to create it from scratch.
We don't know whether or not the ingredient we are unable to isolate is
"intelligence". Nature often makes less than optimal decisions. Many people
seem to believe imperfection in nature proves lack of teleology. They seem
to think that if there were a purpose to nature, it should have been
"perfection". However, there would be no need for intelligence, creativity,
free will, growth, choice or spontaneity in a "perfect" universe. Such a
universe would be boring and the equivalent of DEAD. I should think a
universe created by any kind of intelligence would abhor perfection.
Personally, I like our imperfect universe the way it is, rather than the way
disapproving atheists think it "ought to be".
Bertvan:
>>A creature whose "choice" is predetermined would certainly have no use for
>>intelligence, spontaneity or free will.
Ralph:
>True, if *everything* about the organism was predetermined. But surely
>this isn't necessary. Perhaps the only predetermined part is the body
>type. Or the presence of intelligence.
Bertvan:
Perhaps. However the imperfection of bodies inclines me to believe they are
not predetermined. Since I'm skeptical of the creative power of natural
selection, cell intelligence is the only alternative I've been able to
imagine so far.
>Ralph:
>I also doubt that anyone can give us an exact description of how
>intelligence "works". But I was outlining the types of decisions
>it seemed to me a "cell intelligence" would have to make in order
>to have some control over it's development, to avoid taking pot luck.
>You suggest that maybe the only intelligence required would be the
>ability to recognize which part of the organism was being stressed.
>Surely this would not be enough for your theory. The "cell
>intelligence" has to be intelligent enough to react to the perceived
>stress. Otherwise, it could only sit there, hoping for a chance
>beneficial mutation to come along. You have suggested
>that the cell intelligence might create its own mutations
>as a response to enviromental change. It has to be intelligent
>enough to do that, doesn't it? That means manipulating its own
>DNA, with purpose. Pretty smart trick.
Bertvan:
It's a pretty smart trick indeed, whether such complexity arises with or
without intelligence. At the moment it seems to me that "beneficial
mutations" would be more likely to appear if intelligence is involved rather
than if left to chance. (without intelligence) We have a few hints about
cell intelligence, such as the one cell organism taught to run a maize.
Also, single celled slime molds that, when they run out of food, organize
themselves into a multi-celled organism to produce spores for the next
generation.
>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.
Ralph,
>Yes, I think something like that does occur in nature and Darwinists
>would agree, too. They say usually only changes that improve an organism's
>chances for survival and propagation have a chance of being kept. That
means
>only a few changes would actually stick around long enough to spread
>through a population. If cell intelligence has the ability to create its
>own beneficial mutations, however, I don't think "conservative forces"
>would enter into the picture very much. Intelligence, with purpose,
>can always override mere inertia.
Speculation r us. :)
Bertvan:
When denigrating the importance of stability and conservative forces,
remember that "cell intelligence" would be no more perfect than anything else
in nature. We are rather conceited about human intelligence, but many of us
admit even it is not perfect. "Conservative forces" would always be required
for stability. I doubt Darwinists would ever accept such a concept though.
Mutations created by the intelligent choices of nature would have no need for
any creative power of natural selection, and would have little in common with
Darwin's explanation.
Also, most Darwinists would object to the ambiguous nature of choice as
playing a roll in evolution. Take the choices you consciously make, for
instance. Often you can state factors that influenced you in making the
choice you made, but sometimes you aren't sure. A religious person would
claim God played a roll in influencing his choices. Many Darwinists claim
they have no objection to the concept of God, but only if God doesn't play an
active roll in natural processes. If intelligent choice were acknowledged as
a part of nature, one could never be sure whether or not God played a roll in
some of the choices.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 23 2000 - 09:38:22 EST