To: ccogan@telepath.com (Chris Cogan)
Bertvan:
Hi Chris. I don't like to appear to I ignore you. Your arguments are always
elaborate and well thought out, but our premises are so different that
discussion would be difficult. For starters, I'm sure you will argue that
you don't make assumptions, that what I regard as your materialistic premises
are actually "obvious truths". These discussions sometimes end up
acrimoniously, and I have no desire to change or challenge your assumptions.
If one of us wants to understand the other better, that might be possible.
Sometimes I get the impression you don't believe anything exists unless it
either takes up space, or science has discovered predictable characteristics.
The most prominent characteristic of life, free will and creativity is their
unpredictability. You do seem to acknowledge that intelligence, thoughts and
emotions might exist, but maybe you regard them as some sort of "aura" given
off by bodily functions? On the other hand I consider intelligence to be as
"real" as light, which also doesn't take up space. (However light does have
predictable characteristics.) I see no reason to doubt that as much, or
more, intelligence might exist in a single cell or a string of DNA as exists
in a mere human consciousness. (Most of what we think of as intelligence is
merely knowledge , anyway - which also doesn't take up space.) From
observing life's ability to create rational mechanisms, I make the inference
that intelligence is a characteristic of life. You believe such mechanisms
are created by chance - no intelligence required. Both of our positions are
merely a matter of personal judgement - no proof available.
Chris:
>"Cell intelligence" would involve a massive amount of intelligence, to be
>able to determine, on the basis of current information, what variations
>would be needed to adjust to the needs imposed by current circumstances. It
>would require an *enormous* amount of knowledge of genetics, including a
>vast knowledge of how any given genetic change would effect the phenotypic
>results (far more of such knowledge than we humans, with all of our
>research and special equipment and so on currently have). It would also
>require an enormous calculational ability to determine which genetic
>changes would be compatible with the rest of the organism and the rest of
>the genome. Further, it would require some kind of mechanism for retaining
>and working with all of this knowledge. Even the tiniest genome would
>require something on the order of a human brain dedicated to the sole
>purpose of occasionally introducing a change in a copy of the existing
genome.
Bertvan:
You apparently consider human intelligence awesome in comparison any
intelligence mere nature might possess. I am somewhat less awed.
Chris
>Where is this mechanism?
Bertvan:
You are assuming that intelligence can not exist in the absence of a physical
brain. Yet we are discovering that cells (with no brains) do communicate.
What is there to communicate except knowledge and intelligence?
Chris:
>If there *is* such a mechanism, where is *it*? Why can't we find any
>physical signs of it? Apparently, we have an intelligence with no medium,
>no sensory input, and no detectable means of acting in the world. This is
>supposed to be more reasonable than believing in tooth fairies?
Bertvan:
In my judgement believing in tooth fairies is more reasonable than believing
rationally organized mutations can arise by chance with no intelligence
involved.
Chris:
>Why does design theory almost always boil down to pure mysticism?
Bertvan:
Perhaps it is because you define as mysticism anything about which science
cannot find predictable chanracteristics.
Bertvan
>>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".
Chris
Yes, we do. Intelligence isn't an "ingredient."
Bertvan:
By that do you mean intelligence doesn't exist, or that it plays no part in
biological functions?
Bertvan
>>Nature often makes less than optimal decisions.
Chris
>Assuming it makes decisions at all.
Bertvan:
I'm glad to hear you admit it is an assumption.
Either assumption is a personal judgement.
Chris
>A predetermined organism would have as much use for
>"spontaneity" and "free will" as would a non-deterministic organism.
>Bertvan's implicit definition of them makes them incoherent and
>incompatible with determinism, but there is nothing inherently incompatible
>between determinism and all or any of intelligence, free will, and
>spontaneity, except in people's preconceptions.
Bertvan:
I've never understood your argument that determinism and free will might be
compatible. What would be to choose in a deterministic universe?
Chris:
>Except metaphorically, no Darwinist ever claims that selection is creative.
>But, DNA variation processes (and a great many molecular processes in
>general) are certainly creative, in that they generate a large number of
>*different* results, depending on small differences in initial conditions.
>I've pointed out before that it is the *variations* that are the "creative"
>aspect of evolution, not the selection, yet you persistently ignore this
>obvious fact (both in talking about reality and in talking about
>evolutionary theory). I wonder why. Why would you consistently and
>determinedly (for about two years that I know of) deny and otherwise evade
>this basic claim of evolutionary theory. Is it so you can more easily
>"refute" it, by pointing out the weakness in the idea that selection is
>creative?
Bertvan: . You deny that natural selection plays a creative part in
Darwinism, but most Darwinists I've read argue otherwise. Most claim, "the
mutations are random, but natural selection is not." You claim that "DNA
variation processes (and a great many molecular processes in general)" are
creative, but you also claim they are completely lacking any quality of
intelligence? I suspect anything "created" in an absence of intelligence
could be only gibberish and nonsense.
Bertvan
>>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)
Chris
>Then why don't they appear more often than they do?
Bertvan
I won't try to second guess nature. I assume beneficial mutations appear as
often as required to maintain a healthy biosphere.
Bertvan
>>We have a few hints about
>>cell intelligence, such as the one cell organism taught to run a maize.
Chris
>Do you think that this is somehow even remotely equivalent to the
>intelligence that would be needed to intelligently manipulate one's own
>genetic structure? You have many *billions* of cells. Why aren't you
>deliberately manipulating *your* genetic structure (or telling the rest of
>us how to do it)? Why is it that we humans are apparently the only species
>that is deprived of this incredible inherent knowledge of genetics?
Bertvan:
I can only speculations here. Perhaps I don't have the intelligence to
manipulate my genetic structure. (Although a few scientists hope to acquire
a limited amount of the ability.) I humbly suspect nature is more
intelligent than I am. Remember, intelligence doesn't take up space.
Bertvan
>> 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.
Chris
>This is a good thing for them to do, but where is the indication that it is
>directed by intelligence rather than mere physical responses to their
>internal state when there is insufficient food available? Water freezes
>when the temperature goes below a certain level. This may keep water from
>draining away, but does it mean that water is intelligent?
Bertvan:
The behavior of slime molds is purposeful. Are you suggesting that water
freezes to avoid draining away?
Bertvan:
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 25 2000 - 10:15:23 EST