Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ID - How Many Designers and If ID, Macro or Micro Designer(s)?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 16 of 40 (167909)
12-13-2004 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by thegenie
12-13-2004 9:41 PM


Re: so much in love with us are we...
I'll have to get back to you on that one. It seems though that reading the introduction I ran across 3 strawman arguments in the first 5 paragraphs ... more later.
thanks.
ps -- does it explain a mechanism by which this "microdesign" operates or is it just supernaturalisticaly wonderous magic?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by thegenie, posted 12-13-2004 9:41 PM thegenie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by thegenie, posted 12-14-2004 9:56 PM RAZD has replied

  
thegenie
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 40 (168284)
12-14-2004 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD
12-13-2004 11:03 PM


Re: so much in love with us are we...
Yes, the paper describes a mechanism by which the microdesigning might be accomplished, which depends solely on experimentally observed properties of bacteria and their genomes, and has no basis in the supernatural, magic or fairy dust. For purposes of the paper, genome includes the chromosome, all the extra-chromosomal elements and all the "chemical machinery" (like enzymes) involved in genomic activity and the production of proteins.
Some of these properties are:
1) The genome has self-awareness.
2) The genome can change itself.
3) The genomes within a bacterial colony can communicate with each other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 12-13-2004 11:03 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by sidelined, posted 12-14-2004 10:21 PM thegenie has not replied
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2004 11:32 PM thegenie has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 18 of 40 (168290)
12-14-2004 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by thegenie
12-14-2004 9:56 PM


Re: so much in love with us are we...
thegenie
Yes, the paper describes a mechanism by which the microdesigning might be accomplished, which depends solely on experimentally observed properties of bacteria and their genomes, and has no basis in the supernatural, magic or fairy dust.
By microdesigning do you mean "conscious" directed designing or do you mean a non intelligent natural mode of design?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by thegenie, posted 12-14-2004 9:56 PM thegenie has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 19 of 40 (168321)
12-14-2004 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by thegenie
12-14-2004 9:56 PM


Re: so much in love with us are we...
and the self awareness has been demonstrated? how does one test for selfawareness in a species that you cannot communicate with? we have trouble enough with this concept in apes ...
the "genome" (which I put in quotes as according to your post they are redefining the term to mean something else than what the term really means ... usually a bad sign ...) has also been observed changing itself? (I would be interested in the scientific controls on that one).
"genomes" can communicate in a bacterial colony? If this is just sharing of proteins and similar chemicals, then trees also talk to grass and flowers call out to the honey bees. Communication is more than just signals (or are we redefining words as we go? see what I mean about it being a bad sign?)
excuse me if I have even lower expectations of the paper being worth reading.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by thegenie, posted 12-14-2004 9:56 PM thegenie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by thegenie, posted 12-17-2004 1:00 PM RAZD has replied

  
thegenie
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 40 (169395)
12-17-2004 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by RAZD
12-14-2004 11:32 PM


Re: so much in love with us are we...
Sorry, I got lazy again. I did not mean to imply that all of the listed properties had been experimentally proven. Only 2) has been experimentally proven, 1) and 3) remain questions raised by previous experiments, such as Hall's, and require further experimental exploration before they can be confirmed or rejected. 2) references genomic mutations non-related to the environment, per S. E. Luria and M. Delbrck. Mutations of bacteria from virus sensitivity to virus resistance. Genetics, 28:491--511, 1943.
Re microdesigning: By microdesigning I mean what the author posits; conscious-directed design.
Regarding your question, "how does one test for selfawareness in a species that you cannot communicate with?", I submit that conciousness at a cellular or subcellular level would differ markedly from the neurologically based consciousness which we have attained and thus the tests for such conciousness would also markedly differ. The question of cellular/subcellular conciousness has been sparsely investigated and will require much work and further exploration on the part of those who choose to investigate it.
Because as a non-scientist I have speculated about the possibility of its existence, I am glad to see that some in the scientific community have chosen to investigate it.
As a layman, and as a practical matter, I am quite content to assume, when I step on a sleeping dog's tail, and it demonstrates an action directed toward its well-being by either yelping and getting out of my way or by biting my leg, that it has some kind of conscious self-awareness of its own existence and is consciously attempting to maintain that existence.
By the same token, when I read of bacteria adaptively mutating in a manner which appears directed to the continuance of their existence, I think it within the bounds of reason to assume they might also have some kind of conscious awareness of their existence and are consciously taking action to continue that existence.
Being a basically honest person, I freely admit to myself and everyone else that these are but assumptions which may be proven false.
Again, I apologize for the confusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2004 11:32 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2004 8:59 PM thegenie has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 21 of 40 (169595)
12-17-2004 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by thegenie
12-17-2004 1:00 PM


Re: so much in love with us are we...
There is a big problem here.
Organisms have been observed to change (mutation or translation errors, environmental impacts, etc), and the question is how can you tell whether it is random or directed.
If you cannot distinguish the change in a way that totally eliminates random, then you have proven nothing other than that you like to think in a loose manner.
There must be a prediction that "self-directed" change can fulfill while evolutionary change cannot ... that is how science is done.
I do not see anything that eliminates normal change and selection procedures in anything you have presented yet.
enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by thegenie, posted 12-17-2004 1:00 PM thegenie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by thegenie, posted 12-17-2004 11:49 PM RAZD has replied

  
thegenie
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 40 (169629)
12-17-2004 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
12-17-2004 8:59 PM


Re: so much in love with us are we...
Discourse terminated sans prejudice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2004 8:59 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 12-18-2004 8:58 AM thegenie has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 23 of 40 (169684)
12-18-2004 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by thegenie
12-17-2004 11:49 PM


Re: so much in love with us are we...
denial of facts that get in the way of fantasy does not make the facts go away or the fantasy any more relevant.
enjoy your fantasy, prejudice free.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by thegenie, posted 12-17-2004 11:49 PM thegenie has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 24 of 40 (169733)
12-18-2004 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by thegenie
12-13-2004 9:41 PM


Your link reviewed ...
Comments.
From your link:
http://star.tau.ac.il/~inon/wisdom1/preprint.html
Bacterial Wisdom, Gdel's Theorem and Creative Genomic Webs
Eshel Ben--Jacob
School of Physics and Astronomy
Raymond & Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences
Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, ISRAEL
{note - I have deleted most references and many parts inside paragraphs to make this as brief as possible}

Introduction:

Eshel Ben-Jacob writes:
The power of the Darwinian picture lies not only in its achievements, but also in the dismay evoked by what seems to be the only alternative - Vitalism ...
... erm, ... the "only alternative" ... ? Can anyone spell "strawman argument" eh? Had to look up "Vitalism" as it is sooo popular now: Vitalism - Wikipedia and vitalism - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com. Looks like ID type "there's just got to be more to it" thinking, so I guess that fits here.
My basic assumption is that the observed creativity in nature is not an illusion but part of an objective reality, and as such should be included in our scientific description of reality. ... After all, creation means emergence of something new and unpredictable, something not directly derivable from the present. ... My proposed solution to the above paradox leads to a new evolutionary picture, where progress is not a result of successful accumulation of mistakes in replication of the genetic code, but is rather the outcome of designed creative processes.
This guy really likes that strawman argument. He sets up one false dichotomy after another. The question is not creativity but diversity. Without diversity evolution would fail for the simple reason that the real life tests are often similar to the Luria and Delbrck experiment. With diversity there is no need to postulate creativity, which begs the question (again in usual ID fashion) of needing a creative agent.
.... since they showed that the genome is a dynamic entity capable of changing itself. These are a fundamental to our new picture of the genome. ... My belief in cooperative genetic changes led me to a new experimental endeavor, in which the selective pressure was on the colony. The new experiments led to important new observations ... of morphotype transitions in stressed colonies. These are genetic changes which are beneficial to the colony but not directly to the individual cells.
And seeing as evolutionary natural selection operates on the diversity of species rather than specific individuals this result is not surprising, but the conclusion appears to be pre-assumed and not due strictly to the evidence.
The new picture of the genome as an adaptive cybernetic unit with self-awareness ... The genome, as I see it, is not merely a storage device, but a sophisticated cybernetic entity well beyond a universal Turing machine. Metaphorically speaking, it includes a user, a computational unit, and a hardware engineer and technicians. ... during computations the structure is dynamic and changes adaptively according to the needs dictated by the computations. The crucial component is the ``user'' which can recognize difficulties imposed by the environment and formulate problems requiring solution. ... I further assume that the genome has self-awareness.
He goes on to attribute supernatural abilities to this "user" ... in all, some pretty spectacular claims ... we'll see if they pan out.
At first it seems that the assumption that the genome is an adaptive cybernetic unit with self-awareness will suffice to explain evolution ... Gdel's theorem ... Naively phrased, it says that a system cannot design another system which is more complex than itself.
Naive or just another strawman argument? By this argument, stellar gas can never condense into solar systems and fractal images can never develop from simple equations.
I use the distinction between Kuhn's normal science (problem solving within the scientific paradigm) and scientific revolutions (creation of a new scientific paradigm) as a metaphor to define horizontal genomic changes vs. vertical genomic leaps. The extension of Gdel's theorem would imply that the genome is not capable of performing genomic leaps. Yet these may be the most relevant changes in evolution.
Are we back to random mutations? Could it be that the horizontal genomic changes are self designed changes in response to the environment, and the more dramatic vertical genomic leaps are due to Darwinian evolution? I don't think so, and suggest the new picture of cooperative evolution as an alternative.
Perhaps he should use "micro" and "macro" instead of "horizontal" and "vertical" ... it would be more familiar terminology to the audience. The distinction between "allowed change" and "not allowed change" is equally false as well.

Section 1

The experiments did prove the existence of random mutations, but it did not rule out the possibility that there are also non-random mutations. Nevertheless, these experiments were taken as a support of the Neo-Darwinian dogma which states that all mutations are random, and occur only during DNA replication.
Now he attacks Neo-Darwinism as a basis of evolution? The last statement is patently false: mutations occur on a steady basis, translation errors can only occur during replication, but translation errors are not mutations, and may be caused by pollutants in the cell or pre-existing mutations in the operon sections of the DNA.

Section 2

The regulatory genes and the theory of the operon (a number of genes that function coordinately under the control of a regulatory gene) were proposed by Jacob and Monod in 1961. This is one of a number of great discoveries during the 50's which should have shattered the picture of a static genome which serves as a storage unit only.
Shattered what picture? These operons would only be analogous to the "DO WHILE" or "IF THEN" sections of programming code, which was the dominant (and still is?) image of DNA in the 50's.
The plasmids ... are double-stranded, closed DNA molecules ranging in size from 1 to 200 Kbars. Plasmids can be integrated into the host chromosome. Their replication is either autonomous or coupled to that of the host. The number of plasmids per host cell may be from 1 to 100. The plasmids can be used to transfer DNA sequences between cells. Some can initiate conjugation (a temporary union of two cells for exchange of genetic materials), some can be transferred during conjugation, and others can help transfer non-mobilizable plasmids.
This looks like the mechanism by which DNA "information" has been transferred by cells (if not proto-cells) since time began. This is also involves the method used by viruses to invade a cell and commandeer the production factories. Because of this ability of cells to exchange "information" there is a theory that several forms of the first cells to evolve combined forces to result in an improved product at the earliest opportunities, and another that the mitochondria is a remnant of an invading cell kept by the host and used in the ultimate symbiotic relationship. This is still just "information" exchange at the used book counter.
In 1954 Ryan demonstrated that genetic changes can occur not during replication ... provided the bacteria with food they cannot "digest" and low level of digestible food, insufficient for the bacteria to replicate. He observed the appearance of new mutants that could digest the food, which indicated genetic changes not during replications.
The above findings, put together, should have led to a new picture of a dynamic genome, but did not. Today the genome is still defined simply as the collection of all genes carried by a single gamete ...
We have already discussed the falsity of mutation only during replication. These precepts for a "new picture of a dynamic genome" are false, and so any conclusion based on them must also logically be false (or unjustified).
I propose a new picture of the genome as an adaptive cybernetic unit with self awareness. In this picture the genome includes the chromosome, all the extra-chromosomal elements and all the ``chemical machinery'' (like enzymes) involved in genomic activity and the production of proteins. ... 'element' is misleading, as those are actually agents. I further propose to refer to them as cybernetic agents, or cybernators. My new picture is based also on the known abilities of the genome to change itself ...
It has been pointed out that redefining words to new definitions leads to confusion. He is free to invent a new term (as he does with "cybernator" ... but will it run for governor?).
Actually what he is talking about is the cell. And "... known ... to change itself ..." implies an active hand where none has been demonstrated (see diversity versus creativity discussion above). And if he means "agent" then why have "element" at all in the presentation? He seems confused.

Section 3

... They showed that a specific mutation will occur in high frequencies only when needed to remove the selective pressure, i.e. during a selection for that mutation and not in other stressful conditions, and that the former selection, which triggers the specific mutation, does not trigger other mutations. Cairns et al. concluded that those mutation were adaptive, i.e. that the bacteria somehow mutate in order to adapt to the selective pressure. These experiments and the conclusions triggered a furious debate in the biological community and led to various additional experiments. The latter ruled out several more conventional interpretations, and showed the active role of the bacteria in the events of adaptive mutations ...
Or it just showed that the bacteria were able to switch from a low level of mutation to a higher level of mutation when stressed. A high level during normal situations can be disadvantageous as it creates additional competition, so it could be a real advantage to switch between different levels of mutation for different levels of stress. This does not imply any conscious switching, nor proactive, just reactive. Again, this is nothing more that a "DO WHILE" or "IF THEN" kind of program feature.
One of the most interesting set of experiments related to this subject is Hall's experiments of double mutations [24,25]. In those experiments two mutations in two genes were needed to enable bacterial growth. The most important feature of the results is the doubling of the delay time preceding the appearance of the adapted mutants.
{24. B. G. Hall. Adaptive evolution that requires multiple spontaneous mutations. i. mutations involving an insertion sequence. Genetics, 120:887--897, 1988.}
{25. B. G. Hall. Adaptive evolution that requires multiple spontaneous mutations: mutations involving base substitutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 88:5882--5886, 1991.}
Well, here we have the reference to Hall you mentioned. Not much about them here (he doesn't discuss the "Irreducible Complexity" issue as it doesn't involve his thesis), but the references should enable us to track down the actual documents.
Recent experiments by Galitski et al. and Radicella et al. began to confirm Ben-Jacob et al. [21] hypothesis, that in order to perform adaptive mutations (and other non-random mutations) the bacteria employ cybernetics elements ...
{21. E. Ben-Jacob, H. Shmueli, O. Shochet, and A. Tenenbaum. Adaptive self-organization during growth of bacterial colonies. Physica A, 187:378--424, 1992.}
Is it me or is the use of your own work in an article to justify your conclusions of your own work just a little bit circular (if not downright cheesy)?

Section 4 - Colonial stress and morphotype transitions

It is now understood that bacteria paved the way for life on Earth as we know it, ... Only recently have the notions of smart bacteria and bacteria as multicellular organism (both with respect to bacterial colonies) started to gain attention. Armed with the new developments in the study of patterning in non-living systems, I set out to promote the above notions.
(cue Startrek theme ... )
He set out to prove his assumption, not to test it? Baaad sign. Very bad sign. And this section is supposed to be the meat of the article, the wheat buried in the chaff (and there certainly has been chaff) ....
The study of diffusive patterning in non-living systems teaches us that the diffusion field drives the system towards decorated irregular fractal shapes. Hence, I expected complex patterns to be developed by nutritionally stressed colonies. We have created such hostile growth conditions in a petri dish by using low levels of nutrients and a hard thin substrate (high agar concentration). Indeed, we observed some very complex patterns.
Fractals as a basis for complexity of design? Okay ... but nothing new shown here: "very complex patterns" just means that there is not a consistent pattern of growth, which is what should be expected from such a stressing environment.
Moreover, the colonies exhibit richer behavior than patterning of non-living systems, reflecting the additional levels of complexity involved ...
Umm, duh?
The building blocks of the colonies are themselves living systems, each having its own autonomous self-interest and internal degrees of freedom. At the same time, efficient adaptation of the colony to adverse growth conditions requires self-organization on all levels -- which can only be achieved via cooperative behavior of the individual cells.
Colonies are already symbiotic in their interrelationships, adding stress to a colony does not change this element of pre-existing behavior. The colony will continue to use the resources and output of living members whether stressed or not stressed.
To achieve the required level of cooperation, the bacteria have developed various communication capabilities, such as: 1) direct cell-cell physical and chemical interactions, 2) indirect physical and chemical interactions, e.g., production of extracellular "wetting" fluid, 3) long range chemical signaling, such as quorum sensing, and 4) chemotactic signaling (chemotactic response to chemical agents which are emitted by the cells).
As noted previously they already have symbiotic interrelationships, and these interactions are nothing more spectacular than the "DO WHILE" and "IF THEN" type of responses to stimuli and stress as previously discussed.
Had we demonstrated ... inherited colonial ... characters resulting from environmental stress on the colony... it would provide strong support to the notion of bacterial colonies as a multicellular organism. ... we set up experiments with the above special goal in mind. The working hypothesis was that transitions were expected from a morphotype (a colonial geometric character which is inherited and can be carried by an individual bacterium) which expands slowly to a faster expanding one. This means that the colony which can propagate faster on the agar surface has an advantage in reaching the food. Transitions between two of the morphotypes we have identified the tip-splitting {T} and the chiral {C} morphotypes have been observed. As expected, we observed {T to C} transformations on softer surfaces for which {C} is the faster morphotype, and the reverse {C to T} transformations on harder surfaces on which {T} is the faster one. ...
(Excuse me while I stop chuckling) ... we have already seen that in a bacterial colony there are members that take on differentiation of tasks, some specializing in some things others doing other tasks. Now we see that two differentiated types have pre-adapted differential survival ability to different environments. Is this really a surprise? Is it news? No. At best this is no different from the result in section 3 above except that there is some existing pre-adapted diversity maintained by the colony, and no effort appears to have been made to control for that.
... Since the growth velocity is a colonial property, our observations indicate that some selective colonial pressure is invoked. This would be an extension to living systems of the "fastest growing morphology" selection principle.
Now we are facing two riddles. One is the manner in which colonial pressure can reach down to the single bacterium and cause genetic changes in the individual cells such that a transformation from the {T} type to the {C} type occurs. ...
But that is not what is demonstrated, just that there are more of one type in one situation and more of the other type in another. There is preferential survival in response to the environment and this allows more of one type or the other to survive and reproduce ... and to become the dominant type in the colony.
Another, related riddle has to do with the morphotype bursts. Sparse cells of the {C} morphotype scattered among the {T} cells within a {T} colony have no individual advantage and no effect on the colonial structure even during growth on soft substrate for which the {C} morphotype is the preferred one. Only finite nucleation of the {C} cells has an advantage (on soft substrate), as it can lead to a burst of the preferred morphotype
Perhaps because the {T} type is not stressed by the "soft" environment the way the {C} type is by the "hard" environment. Or the {T} type is the preferred (dominant) type. In either case, it is not a riddle any more than the other was, more like finding pre-assumptions like seeing "pictures" in pieces of french toast.
One possible ... is that of autocatalytic or synchronized genetic changes. If so, a mechanism for such changes needs to be proposed.
Or any other possibility can be developed instead. Such as given above.
That is the end of the "nuts and bolts" section, and it fails to measure up to the promised demonstration of supernatural ability in the microcosmic universe.
Do you want me to continue or have we had enough?
background color changed due to complaints
This message has been edited by RAZD, 12-20-2004 10:23 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by thegenie, posted 12-13-2004 9:41 PM thegenie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by thegenie, posted 12-20-2004 7:42 PM RAZD has replied

  
thegenie
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 40 (170265)
12-20-2004 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by RAZD
12-18-2004 1:55 PM


Re: Your link reviewed ...
No, there's no reason to continue, nor reason to have done the critique in the first place. I agree with your conclusion that Ben-Jacob's argument is in parts fallacious and thus in whole fallacious, and being so it does not prove his premise. But I never directed you to his paper for the purpose of demonstrating support for any premise whatsoever. I did so solely to illustrate that someone else had generated the same question I had in response to Hall's experiment, i.e., that it might point in the direction of a level of cellular, and perhaps even genomic, intelligence which could initiate design at the cellular or genomic level.
Having never voiced support for Ben-Jacob's argument, or for any argument refuting or eliminating "normal change and selection procedures", when you stated in your post of 12/17 that "I do not see anything that eliminates normal change and selection procedures in anything you have presented yet." I realized we were talking at cross-purposes and I needed a time out. I apologize for requesting it so abruptly.
I view life as a manifestation of the mechanical properties and activities of the physical elements and processes from which it arises, and likewise consciousness, self-awareness, intelligence and all other components which, in humans, constitute the mind.
None of the above are, or can be, manifestations of a supernatural, magical or fantastical entity and none can exist as a thing separate and apart from the physical elements and processes from which they arise.
To premise the possible existence of some level of intelligence made manifest by the physical elements and processes of a simpler life form than humans is not to posit anything supernatural, magical, fantastical, or irrational, but rather poses a question susceptible to legitimate inquiry.
In fact the question is attracting a growing amount of attention in the scientific community owing to the proliferation of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Indeed, a growing number of investigators are beginning to couch the subject not as a question, but as a proven by referring to such bacteria as smart bacteria, inferring that some level of intelligence is being manifested by them.
I'm not qualified to make a determination as to whether bacteria do or do not manifest some level of intelligence, that's a matter for the scientific community. However, bacteria are not only our competitors in the game of life, we are at war with the multitude of them which are our pathogenic enemies. In a war it can be a deadly mistake to underestimate any aspect of the opponent's strength, including intelligence. It would be grave error to grossly underestimate the level of our bacterial opponents intelligence by concluding they have none, particularly in light of the fact that they appear to manifest it by identifying and solving the problem posed them by our use of antibiotics. For this reason, I think the assumption that bacteria have some level of intelligent is a prudent one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 12-18-2004 1:55 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 12-20-2004 10:40 PM thegenie has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 26 of 40 (170300)
12-20-2004 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by thegenie
12-20-2004 7:42 PM


Re: Your link reviewed ...
thegenie writes:
I view life as a manifestation of the mechanical properties and activities of the physical elements and processes from which it arises, and likewise consciousness, self-awareness, intelligence and all other components which, in humans, constitute the mind.
My view is more that the universe was\is primed for the development of life in a maximum multitude of diverse environments, and that life is pretty much inevitable in many of those locations. But life itself is not the end product, but that evolution will equally inevitably trend towards conscious thought, self awareness and then to anticipation of the future. And perhaps the mind is not solely in this universe, but linked by subatomic particles dancing in and out of {reality as we know it} to a greater reality\consciousness\being that is (as yet) unconscious. A conversion of energy into thought in an inverse relationship to entropy, an accumulation of "mind" as "matter" dissipates.
But I see no way to validate that concept, as that level of consciousness is supernatural - beyond the ability of science to test.
Indeed, a growing number of investigators are beginning to couch the subject not as a question, but as a proven by referring to such bacteria as smart bacteria, inferring that some level of intelligence is being manifested by them.
Or they are just using the latest paradigm for adaptive behavior, from the usage of "smart" systems in mechanisms from cars to golf clubs. A built-in anticipation to certain expected scenarios. Bacteria are "smart" to diversify their "production" so that they can anticipate the market fluctuations, but it is not a conscious anticipation: all they need to "know" is that a greater diversity has a greater chance of having a successful output. This includes having different levels of production of diversity depending on how stressed the individual is by survival testing. One could argue that it has taken millions of years of evolution to reach that basic level of anticipation, and that this does not bode well for a smart system.
It would be grave error to grossly underestimate the level of our bacterial opponents intelligence ....
I don't think we are in danger of that. This is not so much hubris and bias as it is just looking at the systems that are necessary for known levels of consciousness in animals and how much specialization it takes from members of the interactive bacterial colonies called "human" to reach that level of thought, and not seeing that specialization in less developed colonies.
Enjoy
(ps -- did you mind the red color? Is the gray better?)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by thegenie, posted 12-20-2004 7:42 PM thegenie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by thegenie, posted 12-22-2004 3:34 PM RAZD has replied

  
thegenie
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 40 (170872)
12-22-2004 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by RAZD
12-20-2004 10:40 PM


Re: Your link reviewed ...
"A conversion of energy into thought in an inverse relationship to entropy, an accumulation of 'mind' as 'matter' dissipates." might well lie within the realm of possibility. In my imagination, utilizing Occam's Razor to the ultimate degree, I imagine the simplest method of fashioning our universe, and for that matter, the cosmos (everything within and which might lie beyond our universe) is to have it comprised of one thing which can be converted to an "infinite" number of things through an "infinite" number of transformational processes. Everything which exists being but a different form of the same thing, brought into existence by one process expressed in an endless variety of ways. It appears to me that String Theory may be pointing in this direction. If energy and thought are but different forms of the same thing, a conversion of energy into thought should be possible through some transformational process.
I wouldn't characterize the resulting consciousness as supernatural though, since it would result from a natural process. It would simply exist in a place and be of a nature inaccessible and unknowable to us.
"One could argue that it has taken millions of years of evolution to reach that basic level of anticipation, and that this does not bode well for a smart system." It could further be argued that a high level of intelligence may not be the best of survival strategies, for such intelligence misapplied might backfire. A plethora of scenarios can be imagined where the misapplication of human intelligence could result in the extinction of our species.
Yes, the color change is beneficial. I think the red color produced a subliminal irritation that worked counter to the message. The new color allows the message to be considered in a calmer, more reflective mood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 12-20-2004 10:40 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 12-22-2004 9:14 PM thegenie has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 28 of 40 (170982)
12-22-2004 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by thegenie
12-22-2004 3:34 PM


Re: Your link reviewed ...
thegenie writes:
In my imagination, utilizing Occam's Razor to the ultimate degree, I imagine the simplest method of fashioning our universe, and for that matter, the cosmos (everything within and which might lie beyond our universe) is to have it comprised of one thing which can be converted to an "infinite" number of things through an "infinite" number of transformational processes.
Nicely said. Another way of looking at "the being that is not being" if you will, the grand illusion. This matches my concept of "reality" as a dance around reality as the subatomic particles pop in and out of existence or change stripes at the drop of a hat: the quadrille dance of matter more than a little like that of the mock turtle ...
I wouldn't characterize the resulting consciousness as supernatural though, since it would result from a natural process. It would simply exist in a place and be of a nature inaccessible and unknowable to us.
I have some trouble there: that is what I would call supernatural:
supernatural adj.
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.
The first definition does not have any relationship to an entity or power but just to it being outside the purview of the natural world (and the science of the natural world). A deist supernatural?
It could further be argued that a high level of intelligence may not be the best of survival strategies ...
That thought has crossed my mind. Often.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by thegenie, posted 12-22-2004 3:34 PM thegenie has not replied

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 40 (184367)
02-10-2005 8:27 AM


The multiple micro-designer hypothesis also explains very nicely predator-prey and parasite-host relationships; the organisms in these relationships have numerous features that seem designed to thwart the other organisms' efforts. I once saw a picture in a National Geographic magazine of a lion chasing some zebras, and two facts were very evident:
How superbly designed lions seem for catching zebras
How superbly designed zebras seem for escaping lions
And not only I, but many of you other people, can cite numerous other examples of this feature.

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 40 (184368)
02-10-2005 8:30 AM


Archdeacon Paley and the Museum of Watches
This thread reminds me of something I've discussed elsewhere:
Let's imagine that Archdeacon Paley, of watches-need-watchmakers fame, could come to our time and visit some museum of watches and clocks and other timepieces over the centuries. He'd see:
Sundials
Hourglasses
Purely-mechanical clocks and watches
Electromechanical clocks and watches
Purely-electrical clocks and watches
Their displays would be:
Analog
Digital
/
Mechanical
Electrical
Their timing would be controlled by:
The Sun
Falling sand
Pendulums
Springs
Quartz crystals
Oscillating atomic nuclei (in atomic clocks)
Archdeacon Paley might scratch and scratch his head and ask who designed all these timepieces. There are two main possibilities:
1. A single master designer who has designed every timepiece there ever was.
2. Multiple designers of timepieces over the centuries and at each time.
Would Archdeacon Paley try to argue (1)? And argue that all that single designer's designs are the best possible, in Panglossian fashion? Or would he recognize that it is (2) that had actually happened?
Turning to the Earth's biota, I think that a strong case can be made that if much or most of its features was designed, then this designing would be designed evolution in (2) fashion.
Back in his creationist days, Charles Darwin was inspired by Australia's distinct fauna to note in his diary that:
quote:
A Disbeliever in everything beyond his reason might exclaim "Surely two Creators must have been at work".
And over at The Panda's Thumb, there is a nice article discussing Multiple Designers Theory, which is (2) applied to the Earth's biota.
Also, How I decoded the human genome featured this comment from someone with a lot of experience in computer programming:
quote:
Kent spoke to me in nerdspeak, with geekoid locutions such as the use of "build" as a noun: "That's the most recent build of the genome. Build 31." I was used to hearing biologists talking about the elegance of DNA with what might be called reverence. By contrast Kent spoke of DNA as if it were the most convoluted, ill-documented, haphazardly maintained spaghetti code -- not God's most sublime handiwork, but some hack's kludge riddled with countless generations of side effects, and "parasites on parasites."
"It's a massive system to reverse-engineer," he said. "DNA is machine code. Genes are assembler, proteins are higher-level languages like C, cells are like processes ... the analogy breaks down at the margins but offers useful insights." It was nearly impossible to tell the working code from cruft, Kent said. "That's why a lot of people say, 'The genome is junk.'" But that's what he found interesting: a high-quality programmer's code is always self-evident, but legacy assembler handed down from generation to generation of bricoleurs (I'm paraphrasing again) provides a real challenge for people who like puzzles.
To sum up, it looks like (2) rather than (1) to that experienced designer.
I think that it is a good test of the open-mindedness of IDers whether they are willing to take seriously the possibility of multiple designers. And one can ask why they present ID in opposition to evolution and natural selection. Evolution can proceed by ID (evolution by genetic engineering), and ID and natural selection can coexist as mechanisms of evolution -- they are NOT mutually exclusive, despite what some IDers seem to think.
I have, however, seen some counterarguments offered to the multiple-designers hypothesis.
One of them is that nearly all Earth organisms use DNA as their molecule of heredity, something that somehow implies only a single designer doing all the designing.
If you people find it hard to keep yourselves from laughing, you have my sympathy, because that argument is almost absurdly weak. It's like Archdeacon Paley maintaining that all those clocks and watches had a single master desginer because they all measure time in the same units -- 1 day = 24 hours, 1 hour = 60 minutes, 1 minute = 60 seconds.
I wrote "nearly all", because RNA viruses are an exception, and apparently the only one. But RNA is a close chemical relative of DNA, making that exception a weak one.
I note in passing that it seems to me that DNA is often described as some sort of "magic molecule of life" in quasi-vitalist fashion. Though it's the nearly-universal carrier of genetic information, that appears to be its only function. What makes a living thing alive is the interaction of its various parts, not any particular substance.
Another counterargument is that one superpowerful designer is somehow a simpler hypothesis than a multitude of less-powerful designers. In my watch-museum example, it is deciding on hypothesis (1) rather than (2) -- even though (2) is what has happened. Unless one wishes to believe that there was some superpowerful designer behind these designers' thoughts and efforts, a case of (1) having the appearance of (2).

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by CK, posted 02-10-2005 8:57 AM lpetrich has not replied
 Message 32 by Ooook!, posted 02-11-2005 5:54 AM lpetrich has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024