To: ralphkru@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU (Ralph Krumdieck)
Ralph:
>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 acknowledging 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 find it hard to believe any random mutation might improve any delicate
piece of machinery, much less a living organism, which is many times more
complex than any humanly conceived machine. You wouldn't open up your
computer and invite a monkey to rearrange the pieces, expecting a beneficial
mutation. You suggest that "given enough time" one might occur. We aren't
speaking of infinite time for the evolution of the biosphere. I believe
Dembski's augment is that it is mathematically impossible for such complexity
to have occurred by chance in some four billion years.
Ralph:
>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,
Bertvan:
Science "proves" the existence of unseen forces by learning to predict their
effects. Free will, creative intelligence, and choice are by definition
unpredictable. Yet I get the impression you believe free will exists.
Ralph:
>which may be bad news for some religions. Of course, this definition
depends
>hugely on your definition of "exists".
Bertvan:
It might also depend upon your definition of God. What if someone were to
define God as the "creative intelligence of nature"? Supposedly if one were
to pray (or meditate) one might hope to tune into this immaterial
"intelligence". I didn't read the following web site too carefully, because
I'm not looking for a religion. However if you were to acknowledge the
existence of intelligence as a component of nature, would you call such a
"God" supernatural?
http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/origins-awarness.htm
I wonder which is closer to the truth, materialists who insist reality
consists of nothing more than matter and predictable forces, or religious
people who suspect there is something more but express it in mythological
terms?
Ralph:
>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.
Bertvan:
You keep insisting that nature should do a better job. Not easily
impressed, are you? Organism often do manage to keep functioning in spite of
harmful (random) mutations, but you seem to demand 100 %. Are you expecting
perfection or merely "better" intelligence to be a part of nature? Perhaps
the "good, working improvements" come along at the right speed to maintain a
healthy biosphere. I don't pretend to know.
>
>Bertvan:
>>Since I'm skeptical of determinism, I'll opt for interactive intelligence,
>>rather than overall plan.
Ralph:
>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:
So you see only two alternatives - chance or pre planned? What if the
organism began spending a lot of time up-right? It would take too much
intelligence for nature to determine that a better pelvis might come in handy.
Raplph:
>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.
Bertvan:
Do you consider human consciousness to be the epitome of intelligence?
Surely the intelligence of our own bodies can do many things our conscious
minds can't, such as maintaining an immune system, body temperature, etc.
I'm skeptical that we even know how to measure human intelligence. Some
people are convinced that those who disagree with them are pretty stupid,
regardless of their IQ. (I don't think ID critics suggest Dembski has a low
IQ - rather they accuse him of being stupid.)
>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:
>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?
Bertvan:
It can probably do things our conscious intelligence cannot.
Ralph:
>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:
It would seem a depreciative term for free will, but is any choice something
more than an informed guess?
Ralph
>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?
Bertvan:
Except that clay doesn't possess much, if any, intelligence compared to life.
The kind of philosophy which makes me itch is quibbling about definitions.
Could free will still exist if the universe were the result of chance? If
so, would humans be the only organism possessing free will (or choice)? Does
your dog ever make choices? Do one-celled organisms ever make the choice to
fight or flee? Does DNA ever makes choices or is it merely the result of
chance? Choice implies intelligence; Chance implies its lack. Intelligence
is the ability to make choices. (Or informed guesses, as you put it.)
Below is someone who compares choice to quantum events.
http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 01 2000 - 09:11:20 EST