Jump to content


Photo

Is The Cell Intelligent?


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#21 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,281 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 20 May 2017 - 06:18 AM

i'm not sure you can assign "intelligence" to the cell, but it most certainly has a "control program".
i believe it's this "control program" that everyone means when they use the word "information" about the cell.
"control programs" are not random, and it's highly unlikely one could develop haphazardly.

 

So it's about defining intelligence. Put it frankly, if computers with programs are a form of "artificial intelligence". Then cells are a form of "natural intelligence". 

 

My concern would however be that intelligence is an umbrella term. There are various forms and levels of intelligence and they're also intertwined. 



#22 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 892 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 20 May 2017 - 02:47 PM

i'm not sure you can assign "intelligence" to the cell, but it most certainly has a "control program".
i believe it's this "control program" that everyone means when they use the word "information" about the cell.
"control programs" are not random, and it's highly unlikely one could develop haphazardly.

 
So it's about defining intelligence. Put it frankly, if computers with programs are a form of "artificial intelligence". Then cells are a form of "natural intelligence".

like i said before, this "intelligence" is no doubt associated with the control of the "operation".
operation, the daily stuff of the cell.
epigenetics, transposons, regulatory networks, and quite possibly a sandbox concept, how these work together to carry out the various processes of the cell is the control program for the cell.
this would seem to imply that the kernal of phyla is hard coded, and the control program is self modifying, where the modifications take effect on the next cell division.

the above had to be operational at the time of eukaryote super groups. 

#23 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 21 May 2017 - 04:54 AM

... Or are those two things the same thing, and if so is there anything we can say *isn't* aware ? ...

.
If you arrive at that conclusion, then you've rendered the word "aware" to mean nothing worthwhile, that is, it becomes empty. Think of the fatuity: "Everyone is unique."

#24 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 21 May 2017 - 05:03 AM

... Put it frankly, if computers with programs are a form of "artificial intelligence". ...

.
"Artificial intelligence" is defined within the field of Computer Science and it is a particular kind of program or method of programming.

#25 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,281 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 22 May 2017 - 02:28 PM

 

... Put it frankly, if computers with programs are a form of "artificial intelligence". ...

.
"Artificial intelligence" is defined within the field of Computer Science and it is a particular kind of program or method of programming.

 

 

I'd understand "Artificial Intelligence" as an umbrella term as well. It's about the programmability of a system. And that systems ability to respond to certain inputs in particular ways. 



#26 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 04 June 2017 - 05:59 AM

... Put it frankly, if computers with programs are a form of "artificial intelligence". ...

.
"Artificial intelligence" is defined within the field of Computer Science and it is a particular kind of program or method of programming.


I'd understand "Artificial Intelligence" as an umbrella term as well. It's about the programmability of a system. And that systems ability to respond to certain inputs in particular ways.

.
I took a graduate class in which the course goal was stated--that we would be able to determine when an algorithm is computable and not computable (Turing Machine)--then we took the entire semester to define the method, which was completed on the last day of class. There was no reference to AI during this course.

Here is a summary of a similar course: CIS 262: Automata, Computability, and Complexity

#27 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 11 June 2017 - 04:37 AM

 

... Or are those two things the same thing, and if so is there anything we can say *isn't* aware ? ...

.
If you arrive at that conclusion, then you've rendered the word "aware" to mean nothing worthwhile, that is, it becomes empty. Think of the fatuity: "Everyone is unique."

 

 

Yes, that's the most straightforward consequence of that meaning of the word "aware", though if the conversation had gotten to the point of someone actually endorsing that meaning then maybe that someone would also have good arguments for why it doesn't make the word empty, who knows. But it's moot because IIRC I never got a clear understanding of what Mike Summers meant by "intelligence" or "awareness" in the first place.



#28 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 11 June 2017 - 09:45 AM

... Or are those two things the same thing, and if so is there anything we can say *isn't* aware ? ...

.
If you arrive at that conclusion, then you've rendered the word "aware" to mean nothing worthwhile, that is, it becomes empty. Think of the fatuity: "Everyone is unique."

 
Yes, that's the most straightforward consequence of that meaning of the word "aware", though if the conversation had gotten to the point of someone actually endorsing that meaning then maybe that someone would also have good arguments for why it doesn't make the word empty, who knows. But it's moot because IIRC I never got a clear understanding of what Mike Summers meant by "intelligence" or "awareness" in the first place.

.
"IIRC?"

#29 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 11 June 2017 - 10:20 AM

"If I Recall Correctly". This conversation was a year ago and I haven't re-read it all.



#30 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 12 June 2017 - 03:29 AM

... Or are those two things the same thing, and if so is there anything we can say *isn't* aware ? ...

.
If you arrive at that conclusion, then you've rendered the word "aware" to mean nothing worthwhile, that is, it becomes empty. Think of the fatuity: "Everyone is unique."

 
Yes, that's the most straightforward consequence of that meaning of the word "aware", though if the conversation had gotten to the point of someone actually endorsing that meaning then maybe that someone would also have good arguments for why it doesn't make the word empty, who knows. But it's moot because IIRC I never got a clear understanding of what Mike Summers meant by "intelligence" or "awareness" in the first place.

.
Here is an example of the same worrisome inflation that was asserted by me with respect to "aware", but with respect to the word "religion". From this thread's OP:

... With no written standard, it seems alleged atheists don't think they have a belief system (religion by another name). ...[/size][/b]

.
When I reacted to the excessive rendering of "aware", I knew that I was addressing a common phenomenon in the author's posts. Here we have it precisely with respect to "religion": The Atheist is phony for the reason that he must have a belief-system, which is "another name" for "religion."
  • Goku likes this

#31 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 12 June 2017 - 05:38 PM

Schera Do

But it's moot because IIRC I never got a clear understanding of what Mike Summers meant by "intelligence" or "awareness" in the first place.

Wow! I find it hard to believe that the meanings of these words are problematic for you. Intelligence is our innate ability to practice science or reason. Given a cause what it's most likeky effect will be. Given an effect what its most likely cause was? Our reasoning process (intelligence) allows us to answer "reasonably" causative questions for ourself. We have the ability to think (reason) and even think about our thinking.

I have demonstrated in several occasions that code does not store information but is associated to code in a learning process. Therefore, words are associated to the meeting we assign to them.

The dictionary is one of our best efforts to make some attempt to standardize meanings. But as I'm sure you're well aware many words sound the same but can have entirely different meaning in usage. "Write the right spelling of the word right on the right side of the paper." When spoken the word "right" changes several times in the sentence.

I think you may be overthinking the words intelligence and aware. Standard definitions apply.

Everyone has a belief system. Our belief system helps give meaning to our ltfe. In most cases a belief system is eclectic. Beliefs are our rules. It takes intelligence to process code--answer the question, "What does this mean?"




















 



#32 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 12 June 2017 - 06:53 PM

Schera Do

But it's moot because IIRC I never got a clear understanding of what Mike Summers meant by "intelligence" or "awareness" in the first place.

Wow! I find it hard to believe that the meanings of these words are problematic for you. Intelligence is our innate ability to practice science or reason. Given a cause what it's most likeky effect will be. Given an effect what its most likely cause was? Our reasoning process (intelligence) allows us to answer "reasonably" causative questions for ourself. We have the ability to think (reason) and even think about our thinking.

I have demonstrated in several occasions that code does not store information but is associated to code in a learning process. Therefore, words are associated to the meeting we assign to them.

The dictionary is one of our best efforts to make some attempt to standardize meanings. But as I'm sure you're well aware many words sound the same but can have entirely different meaning in usage. "Write the right spelling of the word right on the right side of the paper." When spoken the word "right" changes several times in the sentence.

I think you may be overthinking the words intelligence and aware. Standard definitions apply.


Everyone has a belief system. Our belief system helps give meaning to our ltfe. In most cases a belief system is eclectic. Beliefs are our rules. It takes intelligence to process code--answer the question, "What does this mean?"

.
I never use the word "moot", and I would never use "IIRC" as an abbreviation.

Perhaps, the other guy has something to add.

#33 Sleepy House

Sleepy House

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • United States

Posted 13 June 2017 - 01:14 PM

Of course a cell is intelligent and aware, by any definition. If abiogenesis happened, it had the capacity to develop a metabolism on its own, learn to divide on its own, and survive in the environment it found itself in, on its own. Conciousness and awareness must have existed in the very first cell. What other reason would it have to divide?

If creation is true, then the same applies. What beats our hearts and heals our wounds when we are sleeping or unconcious? It isn't our minds, because we don't use that to circulate blood or regulate internal temperature or any such thing. Either cells are intelligent, guided by a higher intelligence, draw from a source of intelligence, or some such.

I might argue that awareness or consciousness or intelligence are the basic demand for life to be in the first place. Thought about it that way, awareness had to exist before the cell.

To truly define intelligence, maybe it would help if we knew its opposite. Death isn't the opposite of life; death is the opposite of birth. We come into awareness in our bodies and we leave awareness when our body dies. Since none of us have ever been unaware, it's kind of cheating to say that unaware is the opposite. Or non-intelligent.
  • Mike Summers likes this

#34 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 13 June 2017 - 01:55 PM

Either cells are intelligent, guided by a higher intelligence, draw from a source of intelligence, or some such.


Would you say all three of those things count as "being intelligent"? (in your first sentence it sounds like you would say so, but then you seem to distinguish those three things so I'm not sure)

#35 Sleepy House

Sleepy House

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • United States

Posted 13 June 2017 - 03:02 PM

Either cells are intelligent, guided by a higher intelligence, draw from a source of intelligence, or some such.

Would you say all three of those things count as "being intelligent"? (in your first sentence it sounds like you would say so, but then you seem to distinguish those three things so I'm not sure)

I would, yes.

#36 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 13 June 2017 - 03:23 PM

My argument is that there is no "information" in the cell and though code represents information it requires a mental state to process it. Code means whatever the meaning a concious mind associated to the code. Same as with human communication systems. A word means what a consnsus of humans have associated to it. There is no information stored in code. Code is meant to represent information in the non mental state sate of matter.

Evo's seem to think that chemistry creates life. That would mean chemistry created God. God is the source of life. So the claim life comes only from life is true.


I have never observed information (its physics). How much does a thought weigh? What are it's dimensions?


 


  • Sleepy House likes this

#37 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 13 June 2017 - 11:54 PM

Either cells are intelligent, guided by a higher intelligence, draw from a source of intelligence, or some such.

Would you say all three of those things count as "being intelligent"? (in your first sentence it sounds like you would say so, but then you seem to distinguish those three things so I'm not sure)

I would, yes.


OK, that makes sense. I'm also struck by the specific words "guided" and "draw"; I wouldn't apply any of those words to the process of humans intelligently making something so that it will do complicated things. Is this on purpose, i.e. you don't think humans, despite being "intelligences" in common parlance, can impart any intelligence to things? Or maybe they can but not in the same way that the cell has intelligence imparted to it?


I have never observed information (its physics). How much does a thought weigh? What are it's dimensions?


I have observed flames but they don't weigh anything. I've never observed Pluto but I hear it weighs quite a bit. Weight isn't the end-all be-all of existence you know.

#38 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 14 June 2017 - 06:02 AM

Mike Summers said:I have never observed information (its physics). How much does a thought weigh? What are it's dimensions?

Aeylyn said: I have observed flames but they don't weigh anything. I've never observed Pluto but I hear it weighs quite a bit. Weight isn't the end-all be-all of existence you knowI

You may have given yourself a satisisfactory answer but not me. Flames have physics. Moroevr you know to keep your distance from flames unless you wan to burn. Give me the physics of information or admit you know of none.



#39 Sleepy House

Sleepy House

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • United States

Posted 16 June 2017 - 08:19 AM

 

OK, that makes sense. I'm also struck by the specific words "guided" and "draw"; I wouldn't apply any of those words to the process of humans intelligently making something so that it will do complicated things. Is this on purpose, i.e. you don't think humans, despite being "intelligences" in common parlance, can impart any intelligence to things? Or maybe they can but not in the same way that the cell has intelligence imparted to it? 

 

 

 

Right. We can't impart intelligence as we're speaking of it here. We can reproduce, but that is just a biological means of passing intelligence on, or of intelligence passing itself along.

 

 

Mike Summers said:I have never observed information (its physics). How much does a thought weigh? What are it's dimensions?

Aeylyn said: I have observed flames but they don't weigh anything. I've never observed Pluto but I hear it weighs quite a bit. Weight isn't the end-all be-all of existence you knowI

You may have given yourself a satisisfactory answer but not me. Flames have physics. Moroevr you know to keep your distance from flames unless you wan to burn. Give me the physics of information or admit you know of none.

 

Well, there aren't any physics of information, anymore than there are physics of thought. Thoughts must have some form or energy or they wouldn't exist, but not in a physically measurable way.

 

Take space, for instance. Outer space, if you like. We know that space is there, yet we cannot measure it on a scale. Nothing can exist without nothing; space is what allows matter to be. It's the same with silence. Silence is perceived as a total lack of sound, yet silence is a conduit for sound, so it is there in a way we cannot physically measure.

 

The closest thing I could give you for physics of information is this. You have a thought. Immeasurable, or course. The thought is that you have an idea to draw a geometric pattern. Still can't measure it in any meaningful physical way. You take a piece of chalk and draw it on a chalkboard. Now the thought form has manifested into a physical and measurable thing in the physical world.

 

This in no way physics of information, it is simply a way to demonstrate a link between the physical and non-physical.



#40 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 17 June 2017 - 09:19 AM

Sleepy house

 

Well, there aren't any physics of information, anymore than there are physics of thought. Thoughts must have some form or energy or they wouldn't exist, but not in a physically measurable way.
 
Take space, for instance. Outer space, if you like. We know that space is there, yet we cannot measure it on a scale. Nothing can exist without nothing; space is what allows matter to be. It's the same with silence. Silence is perceived as a total lack of sound, yet silence is a conduit for sound, so it is there in a way we cannot physically measure.
 
The closest thing I could give you for physics of information is this. You have a thought. Immeasurable, or course. The thought is that you have an idea to draw a geometric pattern. Still can't measure it in any meaningful physical way. You take a piece of chalk and draw it on a chalkboard. Now the thought form has manifested into a physical and measurable thing in the physical world.
 
This in no way physics of information, it is simply a way to demonstrate a link between the physical and non-physical.

Exactly. God has given us a way of representing the non-physical--mental or spiritual world. We use words (code aural or visual symbols we have chosen to "represent" information (a non-physical) in the physical realm.

Information is invisible. It is therefore supernatural and that makes us supernatural beings (made in the image of God). We, in a learning process, associate information to code (a physica) such as sound or visual stimuli--symbols). We have learned to read (process) the code we see to give it meaning in our mind. Information canot trransmigrate the physical realm.

Claude Shannon, the reighning garu of information theory, made the mistake of ambigiously definng code and information as the same things. They are not. Code represents, by our choice, specific information stored in our mind (our mental state). Information is not stored in code.
Though not widely realized, that makes us individually responsible for the meaning we give things (code or symbols).

Since we have muscles made of millions of cells and we control our muscles by mental control, these cells which work in concert nust communicate among themselves to do what we ask them to do. We are a very intelligent graceful species.

While information is as real comes, it is only detectable by conciousness (a mental state). We can not store information in the physical realm. If a person can not read he or she did not learn to associate the meaning we by consensus we have agreed to associate to specific code. The consensus meaning we associate to code makes it possible for each of us to communicate with each other.

While God left reading and writing code to a formal process (schools usually) we more or less learn to create sounds (audible code or language) semi-automatically. I.e. we learn to speak a language.

There or more than 5,000 spoken languages on earth today but information is the same in all of us and common denominator to all of us. Code may be different but Information is the same in all humans.

Most people don't realize it but, technically there is no information stored in a book. Thanks to our ability to associate code to the same information or meanng in our minds because of the nearly seemles function of our God written software, we can sometimes think meaning (information) is stored in words (code). But, we control the meaning we give things. Moreover human thought, unlike God's thinking can not command (control) matter. "Which of you taking thought can add one cubit (18 inches) to his stature?"--Jesus


  • mike the wiz likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users