>Bertvan:
>You are relentless. So far each time, after some thought, I've really
>appreciated your persistence.
Ralph:
Let me know if I get obnoxious. :)
Bertvan:
>I think any definition of intelligence has to include the ability to
>make choices. (Isn't that the same as making decisions?)
Ralph:
Probably. The distinction, if any, would be thin. A computer can
make decisions and choices, based on its programmed rules. We make
decisios and choices based on logic, emotion, intuition, experience,
prejudice, what have you. In the past you have said we are
intelligent and computers are not. Still hold to that?
>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?
Ralph:
Chris' reply to this parallels my thoughts. Basically, if a mutation
is bad, the organism may die outright, fail to reproduce or suffer
long-term difficulties in its struggle to survive. Thus, the feedback
is that this particular mutation is bad and should not be kept.
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.
Ralph:
If cell intelligence is the opposite of natural selection, I assume you
mean that the mutations created by cell intelligence do not need to run
the gauntlet of survival since the cell intelligence has already
determined that the mutation will be beneficial. It doesn't need the
Darwinian feedback of death, nonreproducability or long-term survival
handicap to find that out. It knows. Before it creates the mutation,
it knows (otherwise, presumably, it would create something different).
The big question: How does it know?
Bertvan:
>If you want to call it "supernatural creation",
>that might be only because we label something supernatural when we don't
>understand it.
Ralph:
Sometimes, yes. But "supernatural" has a specific meaning--not part of
the natural world. Both evolution and your idea of cell intelligence
are part of the natural world. The idea of a supreme being, eternal,
all-knowing, all-powerful, is outside of the natural, since nothing
natural possesses those qualities, so we call it supernatural. Creation,
by such a being, would be a supernatural event.
Bertvan:
>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".
Ralph:
If there is an "ingredient" we haven't been able to find, there's no
indication that it's supernatural or miraculous. I believe the cell
intelligence you are proposing is entirely natural, that is, within
the natural world? Or do you think there is a supernatural aspect
to it?
Bertvan:
>Nature often makes less than optimal decisions. 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".
Ralph:
Yes, nature does seem to often make less than optimal choices.
A good question is: Why? Evolutionists point to these less than
great mutations as pro evidence, I think principally because one
would expect an intelligence capable of planning and modifying
it's own DNA to do a better job of producing mutations than pure
chance does. You seem to be saying this, too. If cell intelligence,
or any intelligence, is capable of sensing trauma to the organism
and creating a favorable mutation to counteract it, then why do
we see so many mutations that are clearly detrimental to the
organism? Hasn't this been one of ID's rallying cries: Most
mutations are harmful? Why is this so if an intelligence is
creating them?
>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.
Ralph:
You're saying since bodies are imperfect, they probably are not
predetermined. Yet you also believe that cell intelligence can
produce a better "product" than chance. Does that mean cell
intelligence has not been active in planning our bodies?
If cell intelligence has been active in creating our bodies, why
do you consider our bodies to not be predetermined? Does cell
intelligence actively plan and alter our genetic structure
without an overall plan? Is it strictly a reactive intelligence
and not a planning intelligence?
>Bertvan:
>It's a pretty smart trick indeed, whether such complexity arises with or
>without intelligence. 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)
Ralph:
It seems to me, too, that complexity should be more likely to arise
through intelligence rather than chance. Two things keep me from
joining your parade. First, there is a lot of convincing evidence
that chance can produce the level of complexity we see. Second,
the level of intelligence required for every cell, if your theory
is correct, is staggering. A cell manipulating its own DNA? A
cellular intelligence that can determine, ahead of time, if a
mutation is going to be beneficial to the organism? If such a
level of intelligence is out there in every cell, it seems
hard to believe we haven't stumbled across some pretty convincing
evidence of it yet.
>Bertvan:
>When denigrating the importance of stability and conservative forces,
>remember that "cell intelligence" would be no more perfect than anything
else
>in nature.
Ralph:
"cell intelligence would be no more perfect than anything else
in nature"? What do you mean? Natural selection is part of
nature. Are you saying cell intelligence is no better than
natural selection? That's what I'm getting from this but
surely I'm misunderstanding? Haven't you been saying that
mutations created by cell intelligence would always be better
for the organism than mutations arrived at by chance?
Bertvan:
>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.
Ralph:
If "mutations created by the intelligent choices of nature" have no
need for natural selection, then it must be because such mutations
always fit the organism "like a glove". This means that every
mutation created by cell intelligence would be kept by the organism.
Yet you just said "cell intelligence would be no more perfect than
anything else in nature". Never making a mistake sounds pretty
close to perfect to me. I'm confused.
Bertvan:
> If intelligent choice were acknowledged as
>a part of nature, one could never be sure whether or not God played a roll
in
>some of the choices.
Ralph:
This is probably true. We can't even tell now if God had a hand
in our creation or not. God seems remarkably adept at hiding his
fingerprints. There always seems to be an alternative natural
explanation available. Do you mean God might play a direct or
determining role in an organism's choice? Doesn't that "slice
and dice" free will?
Hope you had a good Thanksgiving.
ralph
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Nov 26 2000 - 02:51:19 EST