View Full Version : Is natural selection driven by intelligence?
First of all I want to make clear that this topic isnt about ID.
On wikipedia I read this definition of NS:
Natural selection is the phrase used in evolutionary biology to describe the fact that individual organisms should tend to differ in reproductive output when they differ from each other in their ability to tackle the challenges posed by their biological and physical environment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
Not too long ago I saw this story about intelligent bacteria:
...Yet the humble microbes may have a rudimentary form of intelligence, some researchers have found. The claims seem to come as a final exclamation point to a long series of increasingly surprising findings of sophistication among the microbes, including apparent cases of cooperation and even altruism. But there is no clear measurement or test that scientists can use, based on the behavior alone, to determine whether it reflects intelligence.
http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/050418_bactfrm.htm
Further down the article u can read how bacteria behave and 'help' eachother out in different situations, some even sacrifice themselves by committing suicide.
So is natural selection driven by intelligence?
cronxeh
Mar23-06, 06:12 AM
At first it was pure luck I suppose, but with time and introduction of a nervous system, it was with the aid of memory, cognitive function, and behaviour. I suppose when it comes to vertebrates, you bet your spinal cord its driven by intelligence.
With "at first", do u mean prior to organisms having a nervous system?
Do the microbes from the article in my first post have a nervous system?
pattylou
Mar23-06, 09:15 PM
Part of the problem is the idea of intelligence.
How are you defining it here?
Bacteria can be conditioned, and they respond to envornmental cues, but these behaviors appear to be down to signal transduction pathways and no one would seriously consider these behaviors to be evidence of intelligence. A leaf wilts when there is insufficient water (this phenomenon has been selected for and is the "smart" thing for the leaf to do), but the wilting is due to lowering osmotic pressure - not intelligence unless you are playing with semantics.
Part of the problem is the idea of intelligence.
How are you defining it here?
Well one definition that stuck in my mind was something like "problemsolving ability".
This is also what i was reminded of when reading this part of the definition of NS:
"their ability to tackle the challenges posed by their biological and physical environment"
So yes, im using intelligence in a very broad sense here. If an organism can solve certain problems, then it is intelligent. It basically selects itself simply by being so intelligent that it or its companions survive and reproduce.
Bacteria can be conditioned, and they respond to envornmental cues, but these behaviors appear to be down to signal transduction pathways and no one would seriously consider these behaviors to be evidence of intelligence. A leaf wilts when there is insufficient water (this phenomenon has been selected for and is the "smart" thing for the leaf to do), but the wilting is due to lowering osmotic pressure - not intelligence unless you are playing with semantics.
I got a different impression from reading the article about bacteria in my first post.
Sections like these seemed to indicate they were intelligent in some sense:
Although the full complexities of bacterial signaling are far from understood, many researchers believe the systems helps bacteria to communicate.
For instance, some bacteria, when starving, emit molecules that serve as stress signals to their neighbors, write Eshel Ben-Jacob of Tel Aviv University and colleagues in last August’s issue of Trends in Microbiology. The signals launch a process in which the group can transform itself to create tough, walled structures that wait out tough times to reemerge later.
This transformation involves a complex dialogue that reveals a “social intelligence,” the researchers added. Each bacterium uses the signals to assess the group’s condition, compares this with its own state, and sends out a molecular “vote” for or against transformation. The majority wins.
Collectively, the researchers wrote, “bacteria can glean information from the environment and from other organisms, interpret the information in a ‘meaningful’ way, develop common knowledge and learn from past experience.” Some can even collectively change their chemical “dialect” to freeze out “cheaters” who exploit group efforts for their own selfish interest, the researchers claimed.
http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/050418_bactfrm.htm
selfAdjoint
Mar24-06, 12:58 PM
Communication in that last quote just means the exchange of some chemical or other. All this is chemistry and the steps are on the way to being well pinned down. Many computer systems are as "intelligent" as that. They can communicate and they can change their states based on that communication; that's all that's implied for the bacteria.
Communication in that last quote just means the exchange of some chemical or other. All this is chemistry and the steps are on the way to being well pinned down. Many computer systems are as "intelligent" as that. They can communicate and they can change their states based on that communication; that's all that's implied for the bacteria.
Sure the steps may one day be pinned down. Does that mean they arent intelligent?
Or if they figure out how to build AI, does that make the bacteria unintelligent or the computer intelligent?
Evolution actually favors the "left wall of simplicity." Bacteria are arguably much better adapted to life on Earth than are humans -- they're simple, reproduce very rapidly, and can adapt to an enormous range of physical and chemical environments.
Humans, on the other hand, are fragile and can only live within a narrow range of environments.
Far from favoring intelligence, evolution actually favors simplicity. Intelligence only evolved out of necessity.
- Warren
Evolution actually favors the "left wall of simplicity." Bacteria are arguably much better adapted to life on Earth than are humans -- they're simple, reproduce very rapidly, and can adapt to an enormous range of physical and chemical environments.
Humans, on the other hand, are fragile and can only live within a narrow range of environments.
Far from favoring intelligence, evolution actually favors simplicity. Intelligence only evolved out of necessity.
- Warren
All that means is that the intelligence doesnt necesarily result in more and more intelligent individuals.
It doesnt mean the selection isnt driven by simple, rudimentary intelligence.
SciFiGuy
Mar24-06, 03:53 PM
Intelligent creatures certainly evolve faster. Look at, for instance, small birds, who have high ratios of brain to body weight. Currently, the mechanism behind this is assumed to be the greater flexibility of intelligent life. Imagine a stupid bird that could peck at grubs half-exposed in wood, but was descended from a line that caught insects on the wing. How many generations would it take for the behavior of grabbing at grubs take to appear and allow natural selection to start adapting the bird to that task? A smart bird, on the other hand, would teach itself the behavior, and continue to exploit new adaptations more fully.
selfAdjoint
Mar24-06, 04:49 PM
Sure the steps may one day be pinned down. Does that mean they arent intelligent?
Or if they figure out how to build AI, does that make the bacteria unintelligent or the computer intelligent?
Well what you CALL things is up to you!:biggrin:
I personally find that there is something in the cognitive abilities of the hominids (and perhaps limited to genus homo) that is distinctly different from the capabilties of all other terrretrial organisms, and it seems problematical to me to blur this distinction so far that very simple "mechanical" systems are counted as intelligent. What's next, thermostats?
A quick look at any textbook on evolution will clarify that natural selection = the differential (nonrandom) reproduction and survival of genotypes. If, as suggested above, we define intelligence as "problem solving", it is clear that the general process of natural selection does not require intelligence. A simple example--female fruitfly "A" produces 23.6 eggs when environment is at 25 C, female fruitfly "B" produces 6.5 eggs. There is no problem to solve--type A female genotypes would quickly replace type B over time, all else being equal. Clearly, those forms of life with intelligence can alter outcome of selection process--but natural selection does not require intelligence, it requires genes in interaction with an environment (biotic and abiotic).
I personally find that there is something in the cognitive abilities of the hominids (and perhaps limited to genus homo) that is distinctly different from the capabilties of all other terrretrial organisms, and it seems problematical to me to blur this distinction so far that very simple "mechanical" systems are counted as intelligent. What's next, thermostats?
There is something quite different about it indeed. But if we follow the evolution of intelligence back in time, can anyone really say where it started and how? Or are we then in the domain of the origin of life?
the general process of natural selection does not require intelligence. A simple example--female fruitfly "A" produces 23.6 eggs when environment is at 25 C, female fruitfly "B" produces 6.5 eggs. There is no problem to solve--type A female genotypes would quickly replace type B over time, all else being equal.
True, but i still wonder if that isnt some kind of 'rudimentary intelligence'. Changing the reproduction rate in response to stimuli is somewhat similar to what is described in this article about bacteria:
A new report in Molecular Microbiology by Indiana University Bloomington researchers shows that at least one bacterium, Escherichia coli, ratchets up its "adaptive mutation" machinery when it simply runs out of food.
Biologists Patricia Foster and Jill Layton found that as E. coli cells begin to starve, the bacteria quadruple their expression of DNA Polymerase IV (Pol IV), a mutation-causing enzyme that is notoriously bad at copying DNA accurately. The culprit, the scientists discovered, is sigma-38, a stress protein that appears to activate expression of the Pol IV gene.
"We've known that bacteria respond to different kinds of stress by activating 30 genes or so," said Foster, who led the study. "We now know Pol IV is part of the response to starvation, which E. coli experience regularly during their life cycles. This polymerase may provide the bacterium with new properties that help them get out of difficulty by, for example, giving them the ability to use other food sources for growth."
http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/1160.html
So while it may seem simply like temperature increased their output instead of any intelligence, there is still some process inside the organism involved in doing this and it could qualify as an extremely simple form of intelligence.
quantumcarl
Mar25-06, 11:44 AM
Further down the article u can read how bacteria behave and 'help' eachother out in different situations, some even sacrifice themselves by committing suicide.
So is natural selection driven by intelligence?
Its going to be hard to measure intelligence without an IQ test... I don't think microbes have access to computers or pencils to take the test.
It is interesting that, in the chromosomes of the cells of tissues in humans there is a gene that is called the P52 gene. This gene, through natural selection, has a design that would seem to be altruistic in that it is the cell regulator and decides if the cell will live or die. If the cell becomes mutated or infected, P52 decides the cell and all its organelle should commit suicide to save the surrounding cells from infection or mutation... (such as cancer).
However, there is a mutation, (cancer) that can shut off the P52 cell. And that is what we see today when we see a tumour. It is a result of the mutation that is cancer's ability to shut of the P52 gene's ability and mandate to cause apoptosis and continue to grow, damaging the surrounding tissues, structures and various leukiocytes.
The advent of the P52 gene is probably a result of the drive for suvival in the integrated cells of a tissue brought about by natural selection.
The function of the P52 gene is no doubt an autonomic one and not a result of intellegent choice. It is probable that similar, autonomic mechanisms have developed in single celled microbes as well and that they are not intelligent choices but are naturally selected features that lend themselves to survival.
Have a look at the diagram on this page discussing neuronal cell death. The design looks completely intellegent but is the result of trial and error... or natural selection.
http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/phph/projects/Freeman/patsscience.htm
The function of the P52 gene is no doubt an autonomic one and not a result of intellegent choice. It is probable that similar, autonomic mechanisms have developed in single celled microbes as well and that they are not intelligent choices but are naturally selected features that lend themselves to survival.
Im curious, do all living cells have such genes for autonomic mechanisms?
If so, then it moves their origin outside the scope of NS.
If not then they would be naturally selected.
quantumcarl
Mar25-06, 02:31 PM
Im curious, do all living cells have such genes for autonomic mechanisms?
If so, then it moves their origin outside the scope of NS.
If not then they would be naturally selected.
Before I take a stab at answering your question I want to point out the bacterial that live in a symbiotic relationship with the Lichen plant.
The Lichen obtain nutrients secreted by the microbes and the microbes obtain shelter and nutrients from the Lichen. The arrangement came together probably by accident. There was no Intelligent decision made by either organism to come together and create the symbiotic relationship.
Genes may have developed that supported this relationship because of the proximity and the relative support found in the relationship. The genes would support certain functions that resulted from the symbiosis.
This is how genes are formed (to answer your query). They come about to maintain a function or process as well as hang on to that function as a genetically transferable trait to offspring (hence survival of the species) that has been introduced.
This is all about Natural Selection. You have trillions of genetic combinations in each cell that no longer apply to that cell because it has become specialized. The most striking evidence of this is seen in developing human foetuses. During one stage of development we have gills and we really look like a fish then an amphibian. These are gene expressions that are superceded by newer, compiled gene sequences that direct our development toward the latest mode of selection and survival... the human morphology... which is dictated by the latest selection of genes.
And our modern set of genes seems to have worked in terms of a good selection for survival since, as you can see, we have just reached the 6 billion mark in terms of populating the planet.
But, the genes were not intelligently selected by the cells themselves... they are selected by a process not unlike following the path of least resistance (like the path a rock takes when rolling down a hill) ... the "dominant genes" are a result of natural selection... or "trial and error".
This is how genes are formed (to answer your query). They come about to maintain a function or process as well as hang on to that function as a genetically transferable trait to offspring (hence survival of the species) that has been introduced.
So it is the 'function' or 'process' which keeps the genes of value and transfers them to offspring. And it is this function or process which i say may be a form of intelligence.
Its actually quite simple. Ive twisted 'survival of the fittest' into 'survival of the most intelligent', because fitness can be considered a form of intelligence ('physical intelligence', like there is also 'emotional intelligence' :biggrin: )
But, the genes were not intelligently selected by the cells themselves... they are selected by a process not unlike following the path of least resistance (like the path a rock takes when rolling down a hill) ... the "dominant genes" are a result of natural selection... or "trial and error".
Following the path of least resistance doesnt imply that the genes are beneficial for survival, so that itself isnt what selects the genes which are passed on. A thousand paths of less resistance can be followed and all be doomed, but the one that isnt doomed is the one that serves the function needed for survival.
And as for this part:
Before I take a stab at answering your question I want to point out the bacterial that live in a symbiotic relationship with the Lichen plant.
The Lichen obtain nutrients secreted by the microbes and the microbes obtain shelter and nutrients from the Lichen. The arrangement came together probably by accident. There was no Intelligent decision made by either organism to come together and create the symbiotic relationship.
Genes may have developed that supported this relationship because of the proximity and the relative support found in the relationship. The genes would support certain functions that resulted from the symbiosis.
Is this what they call symbiogenesis?
And if so, then isnt that a form of cooperation? At least thats what i read on wikipedia:
In Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species, Lynn Margulis argued that symbiogenesis is a primary force in evolution. According to her theory, acquisition and accumulation of random mutations are not sufficient to explain how inherited variations occur; rather, new organelles, bodies, organs, and species arise from symbiogenesis. Whereas the classical interpretation of evolution (neo-Darwinism) emphasizes competition as the main force behind evolution, Margulis emphasizes cooperation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis
quantumcarl
Mar25-06, 06:31 PM
So it is the 'function' or 'process' which keeps the genes of value and transfers them to offspring. And it is this function or process which i say may be a form of intelligence.
Its actually quite simple. Ive twisted 'survival of the fittest' into 'survival of the most intelligent', because fitness can be considered a form of intelligence ('physical intelligence', like there is also 'emotional intelligence' :biggrin: )
Following the path of least resistance doesnt imply that the genes are beneficial for survival, so that itself isnt what selects the genes which are passed on. A thousand paths of less resistance can be followed and all be doomed, but the one that isnt doomed is the one that serves the function needed for survival.
And as for this part:
Is this what they call symbiogenesis?
And if so, then isnt that a form of cooperation? At least thats what i read on wikipedia:
It is the competition with the environment that selects a gene to be expressed and expressedly selected to express in subsequent offspring. The gene is produced in response to the organism's environment... not by choice but rather by "accident" out of the "inate instinct" to survive.
Whomever is using the word "intelligence" to describe the selection and expression of genes and symbiotics is out of line by my dictionary.
Web Dictionary: Intelligence:
the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience
Certainly microbes profit from experience but, as i've pointed out earlier, until you can manufacture a computer or pencil that suits their scale, then get them to write an IQ test (intelligence quotent) you cannot tell me they are making intelligent choices, comprehending or understanding their predicament(s), nor, like an intelligent organism would do, can they relate their understanding of their experience to us.
This smacks of a defence for Intelligent Design... even though you have written that it has nothing to do with the topic. Have a good weekend.
pattylou
Mar25-06, 08:48 PM
Carl: I didn't read your whole response, but lichens are algae and fungi. Bacteria are not part of lichens.
It is the competition with the environment that selects a gene to be expressed and expressedly selected to express in subsequent offspring. The gene is produced in response to the organism's environment... not by choice but rather by "accident" out of the "inate instinct" to survive.
Here u talk of 'competition', 'response to environment' and 'inate instinct'. It is these things which i here label a form of intelligence. Im not introducing anything new.
Certainly microbes profit from experience but, as i've pointed out earlier, until you can manufacture a computer or pencil that suits their scale, then get them to write an IQ test (intelligence quotent) you cannot tell me they are making intelligent choices, comprehending or understanding their predicament(s), nor, like an intelligent organism would do, can they relate their understanding of their experience to us.
I dont think the IQ test should be the universal indicator for intelligence. But i completely agree that it is counterintuitive to see microbes and other simpler animals as intelligent.
I would say: if all life is intelligent, then natural selection is driven by it.
If not, then NS cant be driven by it.
This smacks of a defence for Intelligent Design... even though you have written that it has nothing to do with the topic. Have a good weekend.
It actually has nothing to do with ID, its the same old NS were all familiar with. No irreducibly complex systems, no non-random mutations.
iansmith
Mar26-06, 06:02 AM
Carl: I didn't read your whole response, but lichens are algae and fungi. Bacteria are not part of lichens.
Patty, some lichen have cyanobacterira and it represent about 10% of all lichens. In some cases, you can get algae, cyanobacteria and fungi.
pattylou
Mar26-06, 11:14 PM
Thank you Ian. I was unaware of that.
I expect Carl was generally confusing bacteria with either fungi or algae; further it was somewhat messy that he referred to the lichen "plant" since plants are a different kingdom altogether.
I doubt Carl meant cyanobacteria, when he talked about the 'bacteria living with the lichen plant.' The distinctions are important, so thanks again for mentioning cyanobacteria. I didn't realize they could form symbioses with fungi.
I think the idea that intelligence is needed for NS is also supported by how we see our robots behave nowadays. Since they do not (yet) possess AI, they cannot 'survive' for very long or reproduce and keep doing this. Because they do not possess AI, they are subjected to nature, but nothing is being selected.
... but i still wonder if that isnt some kind of 'rudimentary intelligence'. Changing the reproduction rate in response to stimuli is somewhat similar to what is described in this article about bacteria...So while it may seem simply like temperature increased their output instead of any intelligence, there is still some process inside the organism involved in doing this and it could qualify as an extremely simple form of intelligence.Well, no, not by any recognized definition of the concept "intelligence". When a bacteria cell responds to environmental stress, this is not an example of "intelligent" response. The Latin root of the word intelligence requires a step beyond "response", also there must be "understanding". In philosophy, the theory of "intellectualism" requires that all knowledge derives from intellect (which itself requires neurons), not from senses. Your bacteria example is example of a life form responding via sense perception to environment--there is 0.0 % intellect involved. So, I repeat my statement from above post, natural selection does not "require" intelligence--it may be involved, it may not.
Well, no, not by any recognized definition of the concept "intelligence". When a bacteria cell responds to environmental stress, this is not an example of "intelligent" response. The Latin root of the word intelligence requires a step beyond "response", also there must be "understanding". In philosophy, the theory of "intellectualism" requires that all knowledge derives from intellect (which itself requires neurons), not from senses.
So there needs to be "understanding". But what does "understanding" mean in biological terms? Neurons? But what exactly does a neuron do that makes it the physical equivalent of understanding?
Does "understanding" suddenly arise somewhere along evolutionary history, or would it have its predecessors in a simpler form? If so, then the simplest form of understanding may well be present in the first and simplest form of life.
pattylou
Mar29-06, 08:27 AM
Our current understanding is that understanding (and intelligence) relies on interactions between cells (in our case, between brain cells.)
At least that's my understanding.
This isn't my area, but you are starting to move into philosophy of mind here. The basic debate, in my understanding, is that either intelligence is an emergent property (and thus single celled organisms wouldn't have it) or something else (I forget which.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
You could try in the philoosophy section here.
Our current understanding is that understanding (and intelligence) relies on interactions between cells (in our case, between brain cells.)
It could be that a brain is required, but it could also be that this is just our egoistic human view of what constitutes intelligence. Like "if it cant do math, it isnt intelligent".
For example, margulis argues here that our mind evolved from 'microbial mind':
The evolutionary antecedent of the nervous system is "microbial consciousness." In my description of the origin of the eukaryotic cell via bacterial cell merger, the components fused via symbiogenesis are already "conscious" entities. I have reconstructed an aspect of the origin of the neurotubule system by a hypothesis that can be directly tested. The idea is that the system of microtubules that became neurotubules has as its origin once-independent eubacteria of a very specific kind. Nothing, I claim, has ever been lost without a trace in evolution. The remains of the evolutionary process, the sequence that occurred that produced Cajal's neuron and other cells, live today. By study of obscure protists that we take to be extant decendants of steps in the evolution of cells, we reconstruct the past directly from living organisms. Even remnants of "microbial mind" can be inferred from behaviors of thriving microorganisms.
http://www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/content/abstract/929/1/55
So she is trying to trace our mind directly back to the microbes, and believes that there is still 'mind' present at that level. On another site she or someone else talked about microbe 'self-recognition' in situations where a virus invades the microbe and the microbe is able to determine that the virus DNA is different from its own.
This isn't my area, but you are starting to move into philosophy of mind here. The basic debate, in my understanding, is that either intelligence is an emergent property (and thus single celled organisms wouldn't have it) or something else (I forget which.)
Yes it could be emergent, and it could also be a fundamental property of nature. However, even if it is emergent, the question would still be if intelligence emerged during evolution, or during the origin-of-life process abiogenesis.
quantumcarl
Mar29-06, 09:39 AM
Carl: I didn't read your whole response, but lichens are algae and fungi. Bacteria are not part of lichens.
:uhh: thank you pattylou. Algae and fungi come together through a series of unintelligent, random events and there forms a symbiotic relationship between the two species.
The processes that define this relationship are brought about by physical proximity and are continued because the relationship serves to support the survival of both species. The fungi and the algae have not made intelligent choices or decisions to create and maintain their relationship in order to benefit their survival.
This would also be the true in the case where microbes "look" like they are intelligently practising altruism or cooperation. We will project our "understanding" of these traits into the microbes actions when the actions are simply the end result of natrual selection in support of the survival of the species. In other words, actions and processes that support a system will repeat because they support that system, otherwise the system would not survive. This is not an indication of intelligence and comprehension... it is basically a system built on the continuation of supporting processes.
Next we'll be told that the structure of the solar system, gravity and EMwaves are an indication of intelligence because they are altruistic in that they support the solar system.
This would also be the true in the case where microbes "look" like they are intelligently practising altruism or cooperation. We will project our "understanding" of these traits into the microbes actions when the actions are simply the end result of natrual selection in support of the survival of the species.
Why should we assume that the seemingly intelligent behaviour of microbes is illusory (a projection of our own understanding)?
In other words, actions and processes that support a system will repeat because they support that system, otherwise the system would not survive. This is not an indication of intelligence and comprehension...
It is not an indication of human intelligence.
It is an indication of intelligence.
it is basically a system built on the continuation of supporting processes.
Which is exactly what we are also.
Next we'll be told that the structure of the solar system, gravity and EMwaves are an indication of intelligence because they are altruistic in that they support the solar system.
On the other side of the coin, next we will be told that we humans are not intelligent, because we are just a system of supporting processes much like the solar system is.
If we, for the sake of this discussion, accept that humans are intelligent, and that the universe is not intelligent, then it is follows that intelligence came to be at some point. This point may be exactly between the domains of where things "look" intelligent (life) and other things do not "look" intelligent (dead matter).
pattylou
Mar29-06, 10:56 AM
Why not just pick another word? Everyone's getting hung up on 'intelligence,' and the definition still hasn't been agreed upon for this thread. Seems pointless to debate whether something is intelligent if people are using the words differently from one another.
So substitute something else for 'intelligence.'
Self perpetuating.
Elegant.
Efficient.
I think any of those terms would be less controversial and would still allow you to argue your position. Otherwise, it seems you are simply trying to get people to change their definition of intelligence.
It's not like you're disagreeing on mechanism, after all.
Why not just pick another word?
I really cant think of a single word to replace it with. I would end up with a description that sounds more complicated than the word "intelligence".
I dont think there are good words to describe even simple living systems in terms that make them sound dead and non-intelligent. I came across this quote from a biosemiotic paper which also mentioned it:
It seems as if modern biochemistry cannot be taught - or even thought - without using communicational terms such as 'recognition', 'high-fidelity', 'messenger-RNA', 'signalling', 'presenting' or even 'chaperones'. Such terms pop up from every page of modern textbooks in biochemistry in spite of the fact, that they clearly have nothing to do with the physicalist universe to which such books are dedicated.
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Hoffmeyer_97.html
Perhaps "abstract form of intelligence" is a less controversial term.
quantumcarl
Mar29-06, 12:25 PM
Why not just pick another word? Everyone's getting hung up on 'intelligence,' and the definition still hasn't been agreed upon for this thread. Seems pointless to debate whether something is intelligent if people are using the words differently from one another.
So substitute something else for 'intelligence.'
Self perpetuating.
Elegant.
Efficient.
I think any of those terms would be less controversial and would still allow you to argue your position. Otherwise, it seems you are simply trying to get people to change their definition of intelligence.
It's not like you're disagreeing on mechanism, after all.
Good idea, Pattylou. I'll go with efficient and or efficiency.
Intelligence is defined by the ability to comprehend one's condition and the condition of one's surroundings.
Comprehension is defined as:
• an ability to understand the meaning or importance of something (or the knowledge acquired as a result); "how you can do that is beyond my comprehension"; "he was famous for his comprehension of American literature"
• inclusion: the relation of comprising something; "he admired the inclusion of so many ideas in such a short work"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Intelligence is manifest only by the complex system of a neural network. This neural network must have a diversity of neuronal structures to comprehend and to communicate that ability to compehend in order to be confirmed as an entity that possesses intelligence. (ie: by way of an IQ test)
Why should we assume that the seemingly intelligent behaviour of microbes is illusory (a projection of our own understanding)?
Why would we assume that the apparently intelligent behaviour of microbes is not illusory?
Rather than assume anything... we must put our friends the microbes through an IQ test to settle this question. Assumption is not an efficient tool of biology nor of any science.
As for this quote:
It seems as if modern biochemistry cannot be taught - or even thought - without using communicational terms such as 'recognition', 'high-fidelity', 'messenger-RNA', 'signalling', 'presenting' or even 'chaperones'. Such terms pop up from every page of modern textbooks in biochemistry in spite of the fact, that they clearly have nothing to do with the physicalist universe to which such books are dedicated.
What gets me is the author,, if you can call them that, including Pit2, suggest that there is a difference between living matter and non-living matter.
This is untrue.
All matter is matter... living or not. Matter reacts in the presence of other matter and elements in a diverse and sometimes predictable way.
• The sun's gravity "attracts" planets.
• Specific RNA strands are configured in such a way that they picks up specific proteins.
These are developments that have come into play over billions of years... of trial and error. When we use terminology such as "attraction" or "signalling", and so on etc... its because we are human. We are using language which has developed in response to our environment. Its not because living or non-living matter has emotions, intelligence or comprehends its situation as matter. We simply apply our "understanding" of "attraction", marrage, intelligence etc.. to the processes which govern matter, living and not living.
Why do we have intelligence when no other compilation of matter does? Simple. Its one of our more dominant methods of survival. Its our part of the diversity of nature.
How does a tomato survive? It has some naturally selected pesticidal toxins it secretes from its stalk and leaves.
How do humans survive? They have a naturally selected trait known as "intelligence" which helps them survive the elements... etc. This intelligence developed over millions of years due to trial and error and developments in neuonal growth, connectivity and comprehension skills.
Intelligence is defined by the ability to comprehend one's condition and the condition of one's surroundings.
Comprehension is defined as:
• an ability to understand the meaning or importance of something (or the knowledge acquired as a result); "how you can do that is beyond my comprehension"; "he was famous for his comprehension of American literature"
• inclusion: the relation of comprising something; "he admired the inclusion of so many ideas in such a short work"
If that is the definition we are going to use, then yes, bacteria are intelligent. My point is, when one boils intelligence, comprehension, understanding, etc. down to their abstract forms, then it can indeed be argued that all life is intelligent.
Perhaps all that is required is some subjectivity to turn them into subjects.
Rather than assume anything... we must put our friends the microbes through an IQ test to settle this question. Assumption is not an efficient tool of biology nor of any science.
What happens to an alien on a planet without IQ tests? (or a human on mars for that matter)
Is it unintelligent because the test isnt available there?
What gets me is the author,, if you can call them that, including Pit2, suggest that there is a difference between living matter and non-living matter.
This is untrue.
All matter is matter... living or not. Matter reacts in the presence of other matter and elements in a diverse and sometimes predictable way.
It is not me who is claiming that only humans or beings with brains capable of doing an IQ test are intelligent. I dont think there is any magical substance to intelligence, which u seem to think and name "neurons". Neurons themselves are produced by evolution and have bacterial ancestors.
Its not because living or non-living matter has emotions, intelligence or comprehends its situation as matter. We simply apply our "understanding" of "attraction", marrage, intelligence etc.. to the processes which govern matter, living and not living.
Excuse me, since when do humans (which consist of living matter) not have emotions or intelligence?
But what does "understanding" mean in biological terms? Neurons? Yes, this is what it means--neurons must be present, thus a bacteria by definition does not "understand", thus does not have intellect.
But what exactly does a neuron do that makes it the physical equivalent of understanding?Great question, a topic of scientific study, mechanism is unknown to me.
Does "understanding" suddenly arise somewhere along evolutionary history, or would it have its predecessors in a simpler form?
Well, no and yes. It did not have to be sudden, but may have been--thus you can have 1% understanding or 99.9 % or anything between. And yes, understanding most clearly is predicted to be present in more primitive forms than mammals, but, not the very most primitive forms of life such as bacteria. Do we say that the fig tree understands--of course not.
If so, then the simplest form of understanding may well be present in the first and simplest form of life.Well, again, no, this is a false premise. The "first" forms of life did not have neurons, thus 0.0 % understanding at this time in evolutionary history.
Yes, this is what it means--neurons must be present, thus a bacteria by definition does not "understand", thus does not have intellect.
...The "first" forms of life did not have neurons, thus 0.0 % understanding at this time in evolutionary history.
I think we shouldnt define intelligence by being a certain physical system such as a neuron, but rather by what intelligence does. Only then it could be checked which physical systems behave like that. The same goes for "understanding".
Here is a site about cell intelligence (or at least mammalian cell intelligence):
The results suggest that mammalian cells, indeed, posess intelligence. The experimental basis for this conclusion is presented in the following web pages.
The most significant experimental results are:
1. The motile machinery of cells contains subdomains ('microplasts') that can be isolated from the cell and then are capable of autonomous movements. Yet, inside the cell they do not exercise their ability. The situation is comparable to a person's muscles that are capable of contraction outside a person's body, but do not contract at will once they are part of the person, suggesting that they are subject to a control center.
2. The cell as a whole is capable of immensely complex migration patterns for which their genome cannot contain a detailed program as they are responses to unforseeable encounters ( Cell movement is not random.. ).
3. Cells can 'see', i.e. they can map the directions of near-infrared light sources in their environment and direct their movements toward them. No such 'vision' is possible without a very sophisticated signal processing system ('cell brain') that is linked to the movement control of the cell. (The larger their light scattering, the larger the distance from which aggregating cells came together. )
In addition there is the supporting theoretical consideration that the hiterto completely unexplained complex structure of centrioles is predicted in every detail if one asks what structure a cellular 'eye' would have. ( The best design for a cellular eye is a pair of centrioles )
http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehler/cellint0.htm
quantumcarl
Mar30-06, 12:09 PM
My point is, when one boils intelligence, comprehension, understanding, etc. down to their abstract forms, then it can indeed be argued that all life is intelligent.
No it can't. This is not an abstract concept. As I've pointed out there are diverse methods of survival. Humans use what they term the "intellect" to survive. It has developed since the advent of complex neuron networks in simple and complex organisms.
You may argue that the Hydra is a complex network of uni-celled organisms but its function is not to comprehend or use intelligence.
The natural selection process that allowed the Hydra's structure to continue as a species was not because its comprehension abilities supported its survival. The function of the cell network in the Hydra is to have as many tendrils as possible harvesting the microorganisms that randomly pass by.
This allowed for the structure to survive in the interesting shape we see today. It did not arrive at its "seemingly intelligent" design because it comprehended the structure to be esthetic, efficient or acting to support its survival. It survived, better than other forms of the same species, because of the effiency of the structure that was arrived at by natural trail and error... and/or selection.
Perhaps all that is required is some subjectivity to turn them into subjects.
Oh? Turn them into subjects:confused: . Does that make us the kings of subjectivity?:wink:
What happens to an alien on a planet without IQ tests? (or a human on mars for that matter)
Is it unintelligent because the test isnt available there?
Why don't you ask the alien on the planet you've used your intelligence to imagine :uhh: .
I dont think there is any magical substance to intelligence,
I don't think intelligence is any more "magic" than the development of the Jumping Choy Cactus or Stinging Nettles.
Neurons themselves are produced by evolution and have bacterial ancestors.
That's right. Over billions of years bacteria has developed countless survival techniques (by trial and error). One of their latest evolutionary developments was to become a part of a larger system... creating organisms. Beyond that evolution, over another half billion years or more, developed neural networks out of the collections of single cells... this led to what is known as the Ganglia in simple organisms.
A primary function of the Ganglia was to help the organism survive by using its reactions to alert the rest of the cells in the organism to photo-stimulus or tactile stimulus. This was the advent of the neuronal network. Later on, we see humans using a highly developed neuron network to make intelligent decisions like not to engage this thread anymore.
Excuse me, since when do humans (which consist of living matter) not have emotions or intelligence?
Like I said. there's not difference between living and non-living matter.
You may want to do some studying on these topics:
Biology
Evolution
Natural Selection
Survival of the Species
Matter (specifically what it is)
Intelligence and
Natural Order
Laws of Nature
You may argue that the Hydra is a complex network of uni-celled organisms but its function is not to comprehend or use intelligence.
What is comprehension in biological terms?
Perhaps it is something like: an organism senses the environment, compares it with his own body, knows that he needs a certain part of it to survive, then uses it for its survival.
Like I said. there's not difference between living and non-living matter.
Well, we do know that we are conscious beings.
Would u say that non-living matter is conscious aswell?
This allowed for the structure to survive in the interesting shape we see today. It did not arrive at its "seemingly intelligent" design because it comprehended the structure to be esthetic, efficient or acting to support its survival. It survived, better than other forms of the same species, because of the effiency of the structure that was arrived at by natural trail and error... and/or selection.
Efficiency is not what drives natural selection. A computer program may handle files efficiently, yet it does not evolve. All lifeforms have some kind of organisational principle that enables them to survive, reproduce, adapt, grow, evolve. This principle is what i think amounts to intelligence. I understand that u disagree, and i agree to disagree with u :biggrin:
quantumcarl
Mar30-06, 06:04 PM
Efficiency is not what drives natural selection.
This kind of statement is what alerts me to your lack of knowledge and understanding with regard to the process of natural selection, evolution and natural,physical laws.
Efficency is the only thing that drives natural selection.
If a system is not efficent then it does not survive to reproduce its species.
If a system is efficent then it does survive to reproduce its kind.
This is, very basically, the process of natural selection.
You seem interested in the whole process so I heartily recommend you study biology and some of the other subjects I mentioned earlier.
Efficency is the only thing that drives natural selection.
If a system is not efficent then it does not survive to reproduce its species.
If a system is efficent then it does survive to reproduce its kind.
This is, very basically, the process of natural selection.
Like i said earlier, a computer program (or even a car) may be efficient, yet it does not survive, reproduce, grow, adapt or evolve. Thus efficiency as the drive of NS has been falsified. Unless it is the efficiency of the intelligence :biggrin:
Also, please look into some of the scientific sources i have quoted in this thread and respond to their claims that cells are intelligent, instead of dismissing them by calling me dumb (which makes absolutely no sense now does it?).
I think we shouldnt define intelligence by being a certain physical system such as a neuron, but rather by what intelligence does. Only then it could be checked which physical systems behave like that. The same goes for "understanding". Here is a site about cell intelligence (or at least mammalian cell intelligence):I agree that definitions for concepts are critical. OK, let us take your approach, what is it that "an intelligent entity does" ? It has the ability to "understand"--this is what we find in Webster. Now, what does it mean to say that an entity "understands" ? It has the ability to "to perceive or discern the meaning of". Now, let us investigate "cell intelligence" from your post. The site mentions "microplasts" being under control as an example of "intelligence"--but this is clearly false since the microplast does not show evidence (either inside the cell nor outside) of knowing the meaning of why it behaves differently inside and outside the cell. The only example of "intelligence" in this example is from the human researchers that conducted research on the microplasts. Likewise, complex migration patterns in cell structures are not examples of intelligence. Nor is the ability to move toward wavelengths of light energy. So, as you can see, when we use your criterion of defining "intelligence" and "understanding" by what an entity "does" (e.g., ability to perceive or discern the meaning of") then it is clear that the only "cells" where this action is known to be present is within "neurons". Thus my argument, "intelligence" is isolated to a single group of entities in the universe--neurons. If my argument holds, then the answer to your OP must be no--that is the point I have been trying to get across here.
Now, let us investigate "cell intelligence" from your post. The site mentions "microplasts" being under control as an example of "intelligence"--but this is clearly false since the microplast does not show evidence (either inside the cell nor outside) of knowing the meaning of why it behaves differently inside and outside the cell.
They compared the microplasts to human muscles inside and outside the body. The knowledge of meaning would not be in the muscles under control, but in the control-center controlling them. It is hard(impossible) to tell whether something so small as a cell 'knows' something, but if it has sense organs and experiences things, then this experiencing could be equal to 'knowing'. Similarly when u see the color red, u know it is red through experiencing it (there is no other way to come to know the color red).
Likewise, complex migration patterns in cell structures are not examples of intelligence. Nor is the ability to move toward wavelengths of light energy.
Why not? The cell responds to the environment and tackles challenges posed by it. The ability to survive seems an inherent form of intelligence, since it requires knowledge about the environment and an understanding of what meaning aspects of it (for example IR light) have for survival.
So, as you can see, when we use your criterion of defining "intelligence" and "understanding" by what an entity "does" (e.g., ability to perceive or discern the meaning of") then it is clear that the only "cells" where this action is known to be present is within "neurons".
What do neurons do that other cells dont do and that makes them intelligent? This is what i want to know.
The only thing that seems to make them intelligent in above view, is that we know that neurons make up our brains and that we know we are intelligent, thus our intelligence must be somewhere in the brains neurons. However im sure that if researchers looked at neurons under a microscope they would describe them in exactly the same reductionistic language as they describe single cells.
Thus my argument, "intelligence" is isolated to a single group of entities in the universe--neurons. If my argument holds, then the answer to your OP must be no--that is the point I have been trying to get across here.
I understand. My point is that intelligence is determined by looking at the behaviour of an organism, and even though we can observe that behaviour complexity can vary enormously, there is no 'start' or 'end' of intelligent behaviour along the evolutionairy timeline.
I accept that u disagree and also admit that u may be completely right, but currently im not convinced
...what do neurons do that other cells dont do and that makes them intelligent? This is what i want to know...To answer this question, I need to know how you define "intelligence". The entire discussion on this thread has evolved to folks talking past each other because they use different definitions of the word intelligence. So, sorry if you have given your exact definition before, but if you could repeat it here, then I can respond to your very valid question--e.g., what do neurons do that other groups of cells cannot do, that makes neurons intelligent.
To answer this question, I need to know how you define "intelligence". The entire discussion on this thread has evolved to folks talking past each other because they use different definitions of the word intelligence. So, sorry if you have given your exact definition before, but if you could repeat it here, then I can respond to your very valid question--e.g., what do neurons do that other groups of cells cannot do, that makes neurons intelligent.
I opened a topic about this (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=115923) in the metaphysics section, but i havent myself tried to define it yet.
Right now i came up with this:
"to understand the meaning of something and act upon this knowledge"
When i looked up the definition on google, the one that best matched my (intended) definition was this:
to understand and profit from experienceprinceton wordnet (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=intelligence) (top one)
So i think that last one is good. There are other definitions in the topic with which i agree also:
All acts of intelligence are characterized by an understanding of the relations between the given elements of a situation and an invention of what needs to be done using these elements in order to solve the problem and achieve the goal.
Intelligence is the capacity to use given information in a relevant way to a particular situation.defining intelligence (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=115923)
Thank you PIT2. I see the use of the word "understand" in most (not all) of the definitions of intelligence you give. And, here then, I hold is the answer to your question about what neurons do that other cells do not do. Of all the different types of cells that exist in living things, the only ones that show evidence of "understanding" (thus intelligence) are groups of neurons, and this is why bacteria cells are not intelligent, nor groups of blood cells, muscle cells, etc, even though they "do things" (and can profit from doing things)--the one thing they do not do is "understand" what they do. Now, I agree with you that it is not clear at all exactly when during evolutionary process the first groups of neurons came to a state of "understanding"--but clearly this state was not present for many 100's millions years when first forms of living things were evolving. So we see that the answer to your OP is no, natural selection is not driven by understanding (intelligence)--natural selection is driven by the non-random reproduction of genotypes, and whether or not an event is random or not does not "require" intelligence--it may be present, it may not.
I disagree. The definition of "understand":
know and comprehend the nature or meaning ofprinceton wordnet (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=understand)
What the cell experiences would also be what it knows. If it senses IR light, then it knows what it is like to feel IR light. (as i said above, there is no other way to come to know the color red than to experience it directly) Apparently the cell also knows what the meaning of the IR light is, because it 'decides' to move towards it, which results in energy for, and the survival of, the cell.
So again, "understand" may seem like a big word, but in its simplest form it may already present in the first lifeforms.
selfAdjoint
Apr9-06, 07:27 AM
So again, "understand" may seem like a big word, but in its simplest form it may already present in the first lifeforms.
I repeat that if the simplest lifeforms "understand" in any meaningful sense then so does a thermostat. That applies to single neurons too.
I repeat that if the simplest lifeforms "understand" in any meaningful sense then so does a thermostat. That applies to single neurons too.
Would u also say that "if humans understand, then so do thermostats"?
...What the cell experiences would also be what it knows.
False. Again to definitions--a cell does not "know"--see this link on definition of knowledge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge
Second, there is no "meaning" to photons of light energy, they just exist--if they have any meaning perhaps we say that the purpose of photons is to continue to exist. Third, a bacteria cell does not "decide" to move or not to move toward light. To decide infers that a choice exists, and bacteria cannot make choice not to move toward light provided--they respond by reflex, not choice. However, each day, groups of neurons in your brain make choices. So, again you have provided nice example that falsifies the question of your OP--only cells that make choices show intelligence, groups of neurons make choices, groups of bacteria cell do not--bacteria are not intelligent. I appreciate the opportunity to dialog with you, but I decide to move on to other threads now. Best of luck searching for intelligence in bacteria cells.
selfAdjoint
Apr9-06, 02:12 PM
Would u also say that "if humans understand, then so do thermostats"?
No I definitely would not. But it seems that you would!:surprised
False. Again to definitions--a cell does not "know"--see this link on definition of knowledge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge
If a cell senses something, then it knows something (it knows what it is like to sense what it senses).
Second, there is no "meaning" to photons of light energy, they just exist--if they have any meaning perhaps we say that the purpose of photons is to continue to exist.
The photons that come from the television and enter our eyes obviously have a "meaning" in the mind of the spectator. Thus photons, molecules, and anything else can have meaning when they are observed/sensed by living beings.
Third, a bacteria cell does not "decide" to move or not to move toward light. To decide infers that a choice exists, and bacteria cannot make choice not to move toward light provided--they respond by reflex, not choice.
The complex behaviour of bacteria in all kinds of environments actually does suggest that they do make decisions. Take this example:
Looking at the same cell in phase contrast microscopy advance along the track as shown in the sequence below, shows that the cell was by no means confined to the glass-'road' it followed. Many times it extended its body well into the gold surface. Eventually, it walked out at a point where the 'road' was no different than anyplace else. In short, the cells was certainly not forced into the guiding line. Following it,therefore, meant that it detected and followed clues, not forces.
http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehler/guidance.htm
However, each day, groups of neurons in your brain make choices. So, again you have provided nice example that falsifies the question of your OP--only cells that make choices show intelligence, groups of neurons make choices, groups of bacteria cell do not--bacteria are not intelligent. I appreciate the opportunity to dialog with you, but I decide to move on to other threads now. Best of luck searching for intelligence in bacteria cells.
Im sorry, but u still havent provided any arguments other than:
"neurons make choices, cells dont, and this serves as an example that falsifies the OP"
selfAdjoint
Apr9-06, 09:41 PM
PIT2, where someone else says "The switch was turned on" or "The switch was turned off", you persist in using loaded language like "The switch senses that it was turned on" or "The switch understands that it was turned off". The rest of us can't make any sense out of that.
PIT2, where someone else says "The switch was turned on" or "The switch was turned off", you persist in using loaded language like "The switch senses that it was turned on" or "The switch understands that it was turned off". The rest of us can't make any sense out of that.
We are not talking about switches, but about living organisms. Comparing living organisms with switches and thermostats is just as "loaded" as considering that they are conscious.
As for "understanding", i dont know what rade or u are talking about when speaking of this. All ive read here is that there seems to exist the idea that "understanding = multiple neurons" and "intelligence = multiple neurons". However the definitions ive shown do not speak in terms of neurons.
SizarieldoR
Apr11-06, 10:28 AM
I believe that the statement is false,
first of all because not always do the most intelligent induviduals survive, and
second, because even if an intelligent individual survives in spite of a less intelligent one, the intelligence will probably not be transmitted to the heirs of the "clever boy/girl" (ALTHOUGH the question of hereditary intelligence is dusputed, I personally take the Freudistic point of view)
selfAdjoint
Apr11-06, 05:32 PM
We are not talking about switches, but about living organisms. Comparing living organisms with switches and thermostats is just as "loaded" as considering that they are conscious.
As for "understanding", i dont know what rade or u are talking about when speaking of this. All ive read here is that there seems to exist the idea that "understanding = multiple neurons" and "intelligence = multiple neurons". However the definitions ive shown do not speak in terms of neurons.
The simplest organisms have reactions that are entirely comparable to switches. So do many studied functions in our brains. Are you positing some miraculous "life force" that distinguishes a switch mechanism found in a living organism from a similar one made of hardware?
quantumcarl
Apr12-06, 09:41 AM
I think what the confusion here is is that "intelligence" really is only a complex series of switches and so one could depict intelligence as existing in all forms of matter in that all forms of matter respond to stimulus or "cause".
However "intelligence" is a concept concieved by humans to describe the complex interactions of neurons in the highly developed brain of the animal "homo sapien sapien". It also describes similar functions in other mammals such as the ape family and the dolphin and whale. Even birds show some intelligence in their use of tools to obtain food (ie: using a stick to coax grubs out of a tree).
The reason we make such a distinction between the less complex "switches' in bacterial molecular make-up and the the more comlex interacting switches of the afore mentioned mammals is because we like to distinquish between levels of complexity for our own purposes. Thus, we classify some sets of molecules as intelligent and some as not intelligent.
In the end we must admit that all living and non-living things are comprised, at one level, of the basic unit of "molecules" that act and react in various ways to various causes. What we say about these structures has no bearing upon what they actually are or are doing. This reminds us of Dr. Bohr's statement where science only represents what we can say about nature... not what nature actually is. To condense what Dr. Bohr is saying one would only need to say "get over yourselves".
selfAdjoint
Apr12-06, 12:24 PM
I think what the confusion here is is that "intelligence" really is only a complex series of switches and so one could depict intelligence as existing in all forms of matter in that all forms of matter respond to stimulus or "cause".
However "intelligence" is a concept concieved by humans to describe the complex interactions of neurons in the highly developed brain of the animal "homo sapien sapien". It also describes similar functions in other mammals such as the ape family and the dolphin and whale. Even birds show some intelligence in their use of tools to obtain food (ie: using a stick to coax grubs out of a tree).
The reason we make such a distinction between the less complex "switches' in bacterial molecular make-up and the the more comlex interacting switches of the afore mentioned mammals is because we like to distinquish between levels of complexity for our own purposes. Thus, we classify some sets of molecules as intelligent and some as not intelligent.
In the end we must admit that all living and non-living things are comprised, at one level, of the basic unit of "molecules" that act and react in various ways to various causes. What we say about these structures has no bearing upon what they actually are or are doing. This reminds us of Dr. Bohr's statement where science only represents what we can say about nature... not what nature actually is. To condense what Dr. Bohr is saying one would only need to say "get over yourselves".
I completely agree with this. Intelligence is only a name we agree to give to certain behavior. Likewise species is only a grouping we have for our own contingent purposes. It doesn't exactly correspond to any objective description (did I hear somebody say "interbreed"? Consider North American canids, or those species of birds that circle the pole.)
quantumcarl
Apr12-06, 02:35 PM
I completely agree with this. Intelligence is only a name we agree to give to certain behavior.
Yes, such as the behaviour observed in a brain when it is stimulated by specific stimuli and responds with specific responses.
Likewise species is only a grouping we have for our own contingent purposes. It doesn't exactly correspond to any objective description (did I hear somebody say "interbreed"?
or "hybrid" (such as the electric/methane dung beetle):bugeye: ?
Consider North American canids, or those species of birds that circle the pole.)
Are they performing a May Pole Celebration or simply following a leader whose progenitors have passed on a genetic predisposition to fly in circles at a specific location?:uhh:
Don't mind me, I gave up maintaining any delusion of intelligence to make room for what might actually be going on in the world. Its kind of cool to speculate that we don't know a bl**dy thing about this universe because that's when you're open to learning something about it. As soon as you fill your head with ideas about how things "really work"... there's no room for the truth.
Hasta Luego me amigas y amigos!
The simplest organisms have reactions that are entirely comparable to switches. So do many studied functions in our brains.
So why say that the 'switches' in our brains are intelligent, and the 'switches' in simpler organisms are not?
Are you positing some miraculous "life force" that distinguishes a switch mechanism found in a living organism from a similar one made of hardware?
On the contrary, i am taking away the life force attributed to neurons.
In the end we must admit that all living and non-living things are comprised, at one level, of the basic unit of "molecules" that act and react in various ways to various causes. What we say about these structures has no bearing upon what they actually are or are doing.
And this goes both ways of course, whether one wishes to call something intelligent, or switchy.
selfAdjoint
Apr12-06, 05:52 PM
So why say that the 'switches' in our brains are intelligent, and the 'switches' in simpler organisms are not?
I don't say that. I say intelligence is an emergent property of the complex interaction of the zillions of switches in our brains. Very much simpler organisms don't have enough switches for that to happen. And the very simplest ones, bacteria, have switch sets comparable to manufactured devices.
And the very simplest ones, bacteria, have switch sets comparable to manufactured devices.
I think even the simplest organisms are well ahead of any manmade devices or AI.
This paper below takes it all even a step further, by claiming that the bacterial intelligence selects/designs its genome. But this is not what im claiming here in this topic.
Abstract
This paper is devoted to presenting an alternative approach to the Darwinian one. The basic assumption is that the creativity observed in nature is not an illusion but part of an objective reality. In the new picture evolutionary progress is not a result of successful accumulation of mistakes, but is rather the outcome of designed creative processes in the genome.
8. The genome as an adaptive cybernetic unit with self-awareness
We have referred to the genome as an adaptive cybernetic unit [22,33] in order to emphasize that, in our view, it is beyond a universal Turing machine [71]. As I mentioned in the introduction, metaphorically speaking, the genome includes a user with a computational unit and a hardware engineer with a team of technicians for continuous design and implementation of changes in the hardware. Such a complex is beyond a universal Turing machine. In the latter, the structure is static and is decoupled from the input=output and the computation process. The genome is a dynamic entity. If its structure changes adaptively it does so according to the performed computations. It implies that the genome is capable of self-reference, has self-information and, most crucially, has self-awareness. The user represents the ability of the genome to recognize that it faces a diffculty (imposed by the environmental conditions), formulate the problem associated with the diffculty and initiate a search for its solution. As discussed in Section 7, the genome employs its past experience in the process. The user also represents the ability of the genome to interpret and assign meaning to the outcome of its computations and compare it with its interpretation of the environmental conditions.
12. Possible implication of the new picture(Darwinian evolution vs. Cooperative evolution)
If there is indeed genetic communication in eukaryotes, then the state of the eukaryote can directly affect genetic changes in its individual cells, in the same manner that the state of the colony affects genetic changes in the individual bacterium. I would like to emphasize that indeed macro to micro singular feedback should exist for effcient control. In this regard, I believe that there are cells specialized in producing cybernators. The latter affect germ cells, thus, providing a plausible mechanism for designed changes in eukaryotes, changes brought about by the creative acts of genomic webs established within the organism.
http://star.tau.ac.il/~eshel/papers/bacterial%20wisdom.pdf
from: http://star.tau.ac.il/~eshel/bacterial_linguistic.html
Its from 1998 so i dont know how the experiments he mentions have turned out afterwards.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.