>
>Bertvan: Hi Ralph,
>You ask how something can be intelligently designed but not pre-determined?
>By defining intelligence as merely the ability to make choices, and not the
>phenomenon that is experienced by human conscious. Take the evolution of a
>culture or an economy, for example. (We have learned that evolved economies
>work better than pre-planned ones.) The evolution of such institutions are
>the result of many and varied individual actions. Each action is the result
>of some conscious choice rather than random. (choice, the opposite of
>random.) Regardless of the wisdom of each decision, "intelligence" of a
sort
>is involved in making all choices. Some choices are better than others, but
>wrong decisions are rarely fatal, as would be required by Darwinism.
>
>Some choices are selfish and some are for the benefit of the institution
as a
>whole. As opposed to Darwinists who regard altruism as a "survival
strategy"
>which evolved as the result of chance and selection, I suggest that altruism
>is as much an intrinsic part of the design of life as self-interest. Life
>seems designed with a fine balance between the two. Dawkins' collection of
>"selfish genes" would have gone nowhere without altruism. If "intelligence"
>is a part of every living molecule, organisms may have gradually designed
>themselves. Margulis suggests that the eukaryote cell evolved from an
>accumulation of individual acts of symbiosis. I can't imagine that the
>evolution of the biosphere took place by any other mechanism than
>accumulation of individual choices. Certainly a bunch of biospheres didn't
>die off until one arose (by chance) that worked. (I'm intrigued by biologist
>Rupert Shelldrake's suggestion that all laws of nature are entrenched
>habits.) If, as suggested by the panspermia people, horizontal transfer
>plays a roll in creation of complexity, some internal "intelligence" would
>still be necessary to organize any new genetic material.
Ralph:
Thanks, Bertvan. That was very interesting but I want to stick with your
theory, if that's OK? Are you then defining your "cell intelligence" to
mean the ability of the cell to make decisions? That's what it sounds
like.
>Ralph:
>>OK. Does the quality of those choices enter into the picture? Does the
>>presence of life intelligence guarantee life-preserving decisions? If
>>not, why not? If it does, how do you account for extinctions?
>
>Bertvan
>Obviously some choices are better than others, and extinction looks pretty
>Darwinian. IDs do not question natural selection as playing a roll in
>nature; we question its creative power. There is nothing creative about
>extinction.
Ralph:
Natural selection seems like a trial and error process, with some degree
of feedback. On the other end, a miraculous creation would seem to get
things right, first time, given the supernatural traits of the creator.
Do you think your "cell intelligence" and its creative powers falls
closer to natural selection or a supernatural creation? And why? You
seem to be saying here that the "cell intelligence" could make bad
decisions.
>Bertvan:
>>>If the choices were predetermined, that would no
>>>longer involve either choice or intelligence.
>
>Ralph:
>>I can see why you say it would no longer involve choice but how
>>do you rule out intelligence? Intelligence would be required for
>>the pre-determination, wouldn't it? Or are you saying the creature
>>whose "choice" is predetermined also loses its intelligence?
>
>Bertvan:
>A creature whose "choice" is predetermined would certainly have no use for
>intelligence, spontaneity or free will.
Ralph:
True, if *everything* about the organism was predetermined. But surely
this isn't necessary. Perhaps the only predetermined part is the body
type. Or the presence of intelligence.
>Bertvan:
>>>If the intelligence contained
>>>within a single cell is sufficient to organize that cell's maturation into
>a
>>>complex, multi-celled organism, I see no reason to doubt that same
>>>intelligence might occasionally be capable of creating a mutation
>>> "needed" by the organism to adjust to its environment.
>
>Ralph:
>>If a single cell has intelligence, what would that intelligence need to
>>be able to do to create a mutation beneficial to the organism under changing
>>environmental conditions? It would have to be aware of the changes in the
>>environment. It would have to determine that those changes either require
>>a favorable mutation for the organism's survival or that those environmental
>>changes have created a new niche that a particular mutation would allow
>>the organism to profitably occupy.
>
>Bertvan:
>Maybe the only intelligence required would be the ability to recognize which
>part of the organism was being stressed. The curiosity and creativity of
>living organisms ensures the occupation of new niches. But this is
conscious
>"choice". I doubt anyone knows how intelligence "works". We experience it
>at the conscious lever, but it still remains pretty mysterious IMHO. The
>most creative people have acknowledged no understanding of the process.
Ralph:
I also doubt that anyone can give us an exact description of how
intelligence "works". But I was outlining the types of decisions
it seemed to me a "cell intelligence" would have to make in order
to have some control over it's development, to avoid taking pot luck.
You suggest that maybe the only intelligence required would be the
ability to recognize which part of the organism was being stressed.
Surely this would not be enough for your theory. The "cell
intelligence" has to be intelligent enough to react to the perceived
stress. Otherwise, it could only sit there, hoping for a chance
beneficial mutation to come along. You have suggested
that the cell intelligence might create its own mutations
as a response to enviromental change. It has to be intelligent
enough to do that, doesn't it? That means manipulating its own
DNA, with purpose. Pretty smart trick.
>
>Bertvan:
>At the moment the theory of evolution is "stressed". Many people see its
>weaknesses. Speculations are rampant. Each speculation is the result of
>"intelligence" in the sense of being purposeful. (the purpose of relieving
>the "stressed" theory). They are far from random. Maybe one of these
>speculations will fill a "need". Fortunately, however, the system is also
>designed to maintain stability, and conservative forces resist change and
>help ensure that any innovation is for the better. Maybe something like
that
>takes place in nature.
Yes, I think something like that does occur in nature and Darwinists
would agree, too. They say usually only changes that improve an organism's
chances for survival and propagation have a chance of being kept. That means
only a few changes would actually stick around long enough to spread
through a population. If cell intelligence has the ability to create its
own beneficial mutations, however, I don't think "conservative forces"
would enter into the
picture very much. Intelligence, with purpose, can always override mere
inertia.
>Sure enjoyed it, Ralph.
Good. Speculation r us. :)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 22 2000 - 02:34:06 EST