To: ralphkru@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU (Ralph Krumdieck)
Ralph:
>Let me know if I get obnoxious. :)
Bertvan:
The only people I find obnoxious are those who become angry when people
disagree with them. I really enjoy your challenges.
Ralph:
>A computer can
>make decisions and choices, based on its programmed rules. We make
>decisions and choices based on logic, emotion, intuition, experience,
>prejudice, what have you. In the past you have said we are
>intelligent and computers are not. Still hold to that?
Bertvan:
I don't think I regard a computer's function as intelligence. Isn't it the
programmer who makes the actual choices? A computer never makes an
independent choice. It merely sorts information. Given enough time the
programmer could do it all himself, and the computer would have added nothing
to the process.
Ralph:
>If cell intelligence is the opposite of natural selection, I assume you
>mean that the mutations created by cell intelligence do not need to run
>the gauntlet of survival since the cell intelligence has already
>determined that the mutation will be beneficial. It doesn't need the
>Darwinian feedback of death, nonreproducability or long-term survival
>handicap to find that out. It knows. Before it creates the mutation,
>it knows (otherwise, presumably, it would create something different).
>The big question: How does it know?
Bertvan:
Cell intelligence creates mutations that work. Creates systems allowing an
organism to do whatever it does better. Strengthens the organism where
improvement might be an advantage. I find it hard to imagine that a random
mutation would do any of these. I suspect that any mutation which adds
rational complexity to an organism would rarely be much of a detriment.
Maybe random mutations are what natural selection eliminates. You ask, how
does the organism "know" how to create rational complexity? How does human
consciousness "know" how to create? Humans make "logical deductions" (which
are often wrong), but no one knows where completely new thoughts or concepts
come from. No one knows for sure how choices are made. They are like
quantum events.
Ralph:
>But "supernatural" has a specific meaning--not part of
>the natural world. Both evolution and your idea of cell intelligence
>are part of the natural world. The idea of a supreme being, eternal,
>all-knowing, all-powerful, is outside of the natural, since nothing
>natural possesses those qualities, so we call it supernatural. Creation,
>by such a being, would be a supernatural event.
Bertvan:
I doubt Chris would regard "cell intelligence" as part of the natural world.
Before television the idea of sending pictures through space might have
appeared supernatural. Para psychologists claim to have made tiny but
consistent measurements of ESP. If their work becomes accepted, will ESP
cease to be supernatural. Maybe you define "a supreme being, eternal,
all-knowing, all-powerful" as supernatural because you have become convinced
one doesn't exist. As an agnostic I am comfortable with the idea that some
part of nature might always remain unexplained. God or materialism may or
may not be a part of the real world, but neither are required for an agnostic
world-view.
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".
Ralph:
>If there is an "ingredient" we haven't been able to find, there's no
>indication that it's supernatural or miraculous. I believe the cell
>intelligence you are proposing is entirely natural, that is, within
>the natural world? Or do you think there is a supernatural aspect
>to it?
Bertvan:
I regard anything that exists as part of the "real world". Neither
teleology, God, emotions, gravity, creativity, free will, Goblins, nor
fairies, etc., have "supernatural aspects" if they exist.
Ralph:
>Yes, nature does seem to often make less than optimal choices.
>A good question is: Why? Evolutionists point to these less than
>great mutations as pro evidence, I think principally because one
>would expect an intelligence capable of planning and modifying
>it's own DNA to do a better job of producing mutations than pure
>chance does. You seem to be saying this, too. If cell intelligence,
>or any intelligence, is capable of sensing trauma to the organism
>and creating a favorable mutation to counteract it, then why do
>we see so many mutations that are clearly detrimental to the
>organism? Hasn't this been one of ID's rallying cries: Most
>mutations are harmful? Why is this so if an intelligence is
>creating them?
Bertvan:
Maybe most mutations are harmful because most mutations are random. Why
doesn't DNA do a better job? In spite of all those detrimental mutations,
nature has still manages to produce a functioning, interacting biosphere of
astounding complexity. But you think it should have done even better? :-)
Ralph:
>You're saying since bodies are imperfect, they probably are not
>predetermined. Yet you also believe that cell intelligence can
>produce a better "product" than chance. Does that mean cell
>intelligence has not been active in planning our bodies?
>If cell intelligence has been active in creating our bodies, why
>do you consider our bodies to not be predetermined? Does cell
>intelligence actively plan and alter our genetic structure
>without an overall plan? Is it strictly a reactive intelligence
>and not a planning intelligence?
Bertvan:
Since I'm skeptical of determinism, I'll opt for interactive intelligence,
rather than overall plan.
Ralph:
>It seems to me, too, that complexity should be more likely to arise
>through intelligence rather than chance. Two things keep me from
>joining your parade. First, there is a lot of convincing evidence
>that chance can produce the level of complexity we see. Second,
>the level of intelligence required for every cell, if your theory
>is correct, is staggering. A cell manipulating its own DNA? A
>cellular intelligence that can determine, ahead of time, if a
>mutation is going to be beneficial to the organism? If such a
>level of intelligence is out there in every cell, it seems
>hard to believe we haven't stumbled across some pretty convincing
>evidence of it yet.
Bertvan:
I haven't seen evidence to convince me that chance can create complexity.
You claim the intelligence required to design nature's complexity would have
to be a "staggering amount". Since intelligence is apparently weightless and
doesn't take up space what would you define as "a staggering amount"? As
for evidence of it, no one looks for evidence for something they don't
believe exists. For over a century most biologists have been quite content
with "random". I suspect some biochemists are beginning to look for
something more.
The following links are interesting:
http://star.tau.ac.il/~inon/wisdom1/preprint.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/2000/0600issue/0600pawson.html
Ralph:
>"cell intelligence would be no more perfect than anything else
>in nature"? What do you mean? Natural selection is part of
>nature. Are you saying cell intelligence is no better than
>natural selection? That's what I'm getting from this but
>surely I'm misunderstanding? Haven't you been saying that
>mutations created by cell intelligence would always be better
>for the organism than mutations arrived at by chance?
Bertvan
Why do I think mutations created by intelligence would be better than those
occurring by chance? Human intelligence usually appears more efficient than
chance, and the intelligence of human consciousness might be quite limited
compared to the overall intelligence of nature.
Ralph:
>If "mutations created by the intelligent choices of nature" have no
>need for natural selection, then it must be because such mutations
>always fit the organism "like a glove". This means that every
>mutation created by cell intelligence would be kept by the organism.
>Yet you just said "cell intelligence would be no more perfect than
>anything else in nature". Never making a mistake sounds pretty
>close to perfect to me. I'm confused.
Bertvan:
Good comment! My error is probably the result of antipathy toward natural
selection, acquired during arguments with Darwinists. I agree that some
rational mutations created by intelligence could be eliminated by natural
selection. However, the random mutations would be the ones more commonly
eliminated.
Bertvan:
>> 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.
Ralph:
>This is probably true. We can't even tell now if God had a hand
>in our creation or not. God seems remarkably adept at hiding his
>fingerprints. There always seems to be an alternative natural
>explanation available. Do you mean God might play a direct or
>determining role in an organism's choice? Doesn't that "slice
>and dice" free will?
Bertvan:
Sure would. I suppose reconciling God's will, free will and determinism might
be a problem for religious people, but if nature's complexity is designed by
the intelligence contained within nature, freedom (within the limits of
reality) is also implied.
Enjoyed it, Ralph.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 28 2000 - 08:05:05 EST