>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.
Yes. I understand what your cell intelligence theory entails. The mutations
that your cell intelligence creates have to work better than mutations
produced by chance or there's no improvement over chance. You feel some
hesitancy over ackowledging that chance could make the organism better but
my understanding (which may be wrong) is that, given enough time and
mutations,
probability theory and natural selection will guarantee it will happen.
Why do you say no one knows how choices are made and that they are like
quantum
events. Could you elaborate on that?
>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.
I'm sure Chris would regard cell intelligence as part of the natural world
if it could ever be proven that it really exists. Why not? Yes, if ESP
can be proven and is reproducible in the labratory, then it is part of the
natural world and not supernatural. I call "a supreme being, eternal,
all-knowing, all-powerful" supernatural because nothing like that has been
shown to exist. However, I don't deny that such a being may exist and, if
it can be proven that it does, then it will no longer be defined as
supernatural,
which may be bad news for some religions. Of course, this definition depends
hugely on your definition of "exists".
>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? :-)
Most mutations are random? What, is your cell intelligence laying down
on the job? :) Yes, I think nature has done a marvelous job. But it seems
to me that if a creative intelligence was guiding our mutational changes,
we'd be a lot better functioning creatures than we are now and it wouldn't
have taken so long, either. Why don't the good, working, improvements
come along faster? This cell intelligence seems to be a real slug-a-bed.
>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.
In other words, you're saying it's opportunistic? There we were,
happily feeding off the fruit in the trees, when the cell
intelligence saw that there was food to be had on the ground,
if only we were better at walking. So it started altering our
pelvic structure because it knew we would need a different type
of pelvis. If you're going to ring in intelligence, then
I don't think you can get away from planning entirely. If there's
no overall plan, then it's just chance we turned out to be the way
we are. I had to work the word "chance" in there somehow! :)
>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.
OK. Perhaps "staggering amount" is open to misinterpretation. Let's try
"level".
The level of intelligence required to plan and carry out successful mutations
has to be quite high. At least on a par with ours, since we are only now
beginning to do these things. Your cell intelligence was busy building the
"bionic plant" long before we got there, according to your theory.
>The following links are interesting:
>
>http://star.tau.ac.il/~inon/wisdom1/preprint.html
>
>http://www.scientificamerican.com/2000/0600issue/0600pawson.html
>
Thanks for these. They were interesting.
>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.
Given that we know nothing about the overall intelligence of nature, you may
be right. Are you arguing *for* my argument above that the level of cell
intelligence must be quite high?
>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.
So you're saying that cell intelligence makes better guesses about what will
benefit the plant than random chance? But I thought it knew? Instead, it's
just using informed guesses?
>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.
>
This sounds like we're getting close to philosophy, which always makes me
itch. Why is freedom (limited) implied by the assumed fact of nature's
complexity being designed by the intelligence contained within nature?
This seems to be saying that the clay you're using to make a vase has
the limited freedom of turning into a plate. Comment?
ralph
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 03:17:52 EST