Is natural selection driven by intelligence?

[PIT2]

First of all I want to make clear that this topic isn't 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' each other out in different situations, some even sacrifice themselves by committing suicide.

So is natural selection driven by intelligence?

 

[cronxeh]

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.

 

[PIT2]

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]

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.

 

[PIT2]

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, I am 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]

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.

 

[PIT2]

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?

 

[chroot]

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

 

[PIT2]

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 doesn't necesarily result in more and more intelligent individuals.
It doesn't mean the selection isn't driven by simple, rudimentary intelligence.

 

[SciFiGuy]

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]

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!

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?

 

[Rade]

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).

 

[PIT2]

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 isn't 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]

Further down the article u can read how bacteria behave and 'help' each other 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

 

[PIT2]

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]

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".

 

[PIT2]

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. I've 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' )

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 doesn't imply that the genes are beneficial for survival, so that itself isn't 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 isn't 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 isn't that a form of cooperation? At least that's 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]

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. I've 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' )



Following the path of least resistance doesn't imply that the genes are beneficial for survival, so that itself isn't 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 isn't 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 isn't that a form of cooperation? At least that's 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]

Carl: I didn't read your whole response, but lichens are algae and fungi. Bacteria are not part of lichens.

 

[PIT2]

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. I am 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 don't 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 can't 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]

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]

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.

 

[PIT2]

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) possesses AI, they cannot 'survive' for very long or reproduce and keep doing this. Because they do not possesses AI, they are subjected to nature, but nothing is being selected.

 

[Rade]

... but i still wonder if that isn't 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.

 

[PIT2]

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]

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.

 

[PIT2]

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 can't do math, it isn't 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]

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.

 

[PIT2]

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]

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.

 

[PIT2]

Why not just pick another word?

I really can't 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 don't 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]

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.

 

[PIT2]

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 isn't 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 don't 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?

 

[Rade]

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.

 

[PIT2]

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 shouldn't 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