><snip>
>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:
>Where is the feedback in natural selection?
Chris
Unsuccessful variations are killed off. Successful ones are allowed to
continue reproducing. Kenneth Miller, in "Finding Darwin's God," describes
the process as "genetic chance and environmental *necessity*" (my
emphasis). In effect, the environment of the genes "feeds back" information
to the entire population of genes by killing off some of them, thus,
telling them, in effect, "Do more of what you have left." Negative feedback
comes in the form of predation, organismic inviability, disease (etc.), and
positive feedback comes in the form of increased resources (prey, water,
sunlight, etc).
Bertvan
>"Cell intelligence" as a
>mechanism of evolution would be the opposite of natural selection. If
>natural selection were the mechanism of creating complexity, death of the
>organism is supposed to be the creative force, rather than any intelligent
>choice exercised by nature.
Chris
No. Death is not a creative force. It simply allows the better "tries" to
reproduce and undergo *further* variation.
"Cell intelligence" would involve a massive amount of intelligence, to be
able to determine, on the basis of current information, what variations
would be needed to adjust to the needs imposed by current circumstances. It
would require an *enormous* amount of knowledge of genetics, including a
vast knowledge of how any given genetic change would effect the phenotypic
results (far more of such knowledge than we humans, with all of our
research and special equipment and so on currently have). It would also
require an enormous calculational ability to determine which genetic
changes would be compatible with the rest of the organism and the rest of
the genome. Further, it would require some kind of mechanism for retaining
and working with all of this knowledge. Even the tiniest genome would
require something on the order of a human brain dedicated to the sole
purpose of occasionally introducing a change in a copy of the existing genome.
Where is this mechanism? We see the genome, and we see the various
molecular mechanisms used for processing this genome at replication-time,
but we see nothing at all of the *immensity* required to support your
claims? If there is such a mechanism, why does it bother with the molecular
stuff at all? Why can't *it* just do *all* of the replication process,
without bothering to have a swarm of non-DNA molecules involved?
And, where are this "intelligence's" sense organs? How does it know what
predators are in the area? How does it know that many of its comrades in
other organisms have been killed off by disease? Is there some sort of
communication mechanism, such that, when one organism gets eaten, it sends
out some sort of message to other organisms of the same species, saying,
"Watch out for the big thing with the teeth! Make some modifications,
quick, or we will *all* die out. Tell Laura I love her . . . ."?
If there *is* such a mechanism, where is *it*? Why can't we find any
physical signs of it? Apparently, we have an intelligence with no medium,
no sensory input, and no detectable means of acting in the world. This is
supposed to be more reasonable than believing in tooth fairies?
Why does design theory almost always boil down to pure mysticism?
>If you want to call it "supernatural creation",
>that might be only because we label something supernatural when we don't
>understand it.
>
>At one time the idea of antibodies patrolling the blood
>stream looking for invaders to attack might have sounded "miraculous". We
>now know something of the process, but not enough to create it from scratch.
>We don't know whether or not the ingredient we are unable to isolate is
>"intelligence".
Chris
Yes, we do. Intelligence isn't an "ingredient."
Bertvan
>Nature often makes less than optimal decisions.
Chris
Assuming it makes decisions at all.
Bertvan
>Many people
>seem to believe imperfection in nature proves lack of teleology. They seem
>to think that if there were a purpose to nature, it should have been
>"perfection". However, there would be no need for intelligence, creativity,
>free will, growth, choice or spontaneity in a "perfect" universe.
Chris
Perfect for *what*?
Bertvan
>Such a
>universe would be boring and the equivalent of DEAD. I should think a
>universe created by any kind of intelligence would abhor perfection.
>Personally, I like our imperfect universe the way it is, rather than the way
>disapproving atheists think it "ought to be".
>
> 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.
Chris
Usually, I agree with Ralph, but not this time. If *everything* were
determined (or predetermined), what might be thus determined might include
its intelligence, intelligence that enables it to survive where it would
not otherwise. I'm not going to try to prove this right now, but I urge
people to consider, *in detail*, what it would mean for intelligence to be
(pre-) determined (by the physical nature of the physical factors
involved). A predetermined organism would have as much use for
"spontaneity" and "free will" as would a non-deterministic organism.
Bertvan's implicit definition of them makes them incoherent and
incompatible with determinism, but there is nothing inherently incompatible
between determinism and all or any of intelligence, free will, and
spontaneity, except in people's preconceptions.
>Bertvan:
>Perhaps. However the imperfection of bodies inclines me to believe they are
>not predetermined. Since I'm skeptical of the creative power of natural
>selection, cell intelligence is the only alternative I've been able to
>imagine so far.
Chris
This is exactly why, every so often, I say, "Can you say, 'False
alternative'?"
Except metaphorically, no Darwinist ever claims that selection is creative.
But, DNA variation processes (and a great many molecular processes in
general) are certainly creative, in that they generate a large number of
*different* results, depending on small differences in initial conditions.
I've pointed out before that it is the *variations* that are the "creative"
aspect of evolution, not the selection, yet you persistently ignore this
obvious fact (both in talking about reality and in talking about
evolutionary theory). I wonder why. Why would you consistently and
determinedly (for about two years that I know of) deny and otherwise evade
this basic claim of evolutionary theory. Is it so you can more easily
"refute" it, by pointing out the weakness in the idea that selection is
creative?
> >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:
>It's a pretty smart trick indeed, whether such complexity arises with or
>without intelligence.
Chris
This is like arguing that, out of a million shots with a shotgun in the
general direction of a target, if one pellet happens to hit the target,
*that* was a "pretty smart trick," rather than merely being as accidental
as all the *misses* by other pellets. Your ability to sustain this illogic
in your mind for the past two years (at least) is remarkable indeed.
The point of a trial and error process is that it *doesn't* need to be
intelligent enough to solve the problem directly. Instead, it simply tries
things and keeps whatever *happens* to work. It doesn't have to have the
*faintest* idea as to why it work, how they work, or even whether they will
work again. It doesn't even have to know what they *are*, as long as it has
a means of repeating the tries that work. Selection is the elimination of
the tries that don't work, and the continued repetition of the ones that do
work.
Bertvan
>At the moment it seems to me that "beneficial
>mutations" would be more likely to appear if intelligence is involved rather
>than if left to chance. (without intelligence)
Chris
Then why don't they appear more often than they do?
Bertvan
>We have a few hints about
>cell intelligence, such as the one cell organism taught to run a maize.
Chris
Do you think that this is somehow even remotely equivalent to the
intelligence that would be needed to intelligently manipulate one's own
genetic structure? You have many *billions* of cells. Why aren't you
deliberately manipulating *your* genetic structure (or telling the rest of
us how to do it)? Why is it that we humans are apparently the only species
that is deprived of this incredible inherent knowledge of genetics?
Bertvan
> Also, single celled slime molds that, when they run out of food, organize
>themselves into a multi-celled organism to produce spores for the next
>generation.
Chris
This is a good thing for them to do, but where is the indication that it is
directed by intelligence rather than mere physical responses to their
internal state when there is insufficient food available? Water freezes
when the temperature goes below a certain level. This may keep water from
draining away, but does it mean that water is intelligent?
> >Bertvan:
> >>At the moment the theory of evolution is "stressed". Many people see its
> >>weaknesses. Speculations are rampant.
Chris
Such as speculations of "Intelligent Design" (though people like Dembski
and Behe and Johnson would not admit that they ID is speculation).
Bertvan
>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.
>
>Ralph,
> >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.
> Speculation r us. :)
>
>Bertvan:
>When denigrating the importance of stability and conservative forces,
>remember that "cell intelligence" would be no more perfect than anything else
>in nature. We are rather conceited about human intelligence, but many of us
>admit even it is not perfect. "Conservative forces" would always be required
>for stability. I doubt Darwinists would ever accept such a concept though.
>Mutations created by the intelligent choices of nature would have no need for
>any creative power of natural selection, and would have little in common with
>Darwin's explanation.
Chris
Then why is there so much natural selection going on, if there is no use
for it?
><snip>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 23 2000 - 21:00:48 EST