Defining sentient cells: Cell receptors (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, April 05, 2018, 15:14 (2215 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I'm sorry you are disappointed with my answer to your specific question at the end of the paragraph. I've clearly pointed out my thinking in the presentation of the discovery that the 3-D shape of organic molecules carry the information for reactions to create purposeful results.

dhw: And so apparently you know that because the 3-D shape of organic molecules carries the information for reactions to create purposeful results, human behaviour is the result of intelligence and bacterial behaviour is the result of divine preprogramming. I don’t follow your logic.

Your answer is not to my point. I find it amazing that we can see how God has used 3-D shape to insert information into the conduct of the molecules of life. But it shows us how bacterial behavior can be totally controlled by the informakion transmitted by their molecules and genome.

DAVID: No, science can't find the soul, but it can show the degrees of intelligence the complexity of the brain allows.

dhw: According to you as a dualist, intelligence is the province of the soul not the brain, which implements the thoughts of the soul.

No, IQ shows us the level of intelligence differs in different brains, based on the quality of complexity the brain offers. The s/s/c can only be as brilliant as the material brain allows.

dhw: Science can certainly observe the results of intelligence, as it does when it sets problems for non-human organisms to solve. But you don’t believe that behaviour can show intelligence, as is clear from your next comment:

DAVID: The only real intelligence we know involves the presence of neurons and brains. Purposeful actions can be coded, as demonstrated.

dhw: Purposeful actions can be the result of intelligence. How do you know they are not? If the defining feature of “real intelligence” (whatever that means) is the presence of neurons and brains, then of course a neuron-less, brainless creature can’t be intelligent. If an atheist’s definition of God is “a mythical being that doesn’t exist”, then of course God can’t exist. Not the best of arguments, is it? I would suggest that if any organism shows that it is capable of processing information, communicating that information to others and cooperating with them, solving problems and taking decisions, it has the characteristics of what we normally associate with intelligence (not to be equated with the degree of awareness and self-awareness that characterizes human intelligence). Please tell me what other qualities are essential to your personal definition of intelligence.

I agree with you. The organism acting intelligently looks intelligent, but can appear that way by running on intelligent implanted information, a point you cannot deny.