Wound repair (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Saturday, April 18, 2015, 15:47 (3294 days ago)
It shows how complex is the 'knowledge' that living organisms carry to make a repair:-"A Form of Knowing. I spoke a moment ago of molecular and cellular movements that seemed to be both meaningfully directed and unprogrammed. Here is a more concrete example. It deals with the fiendishly complex and coordinated response to a kind of challenge — a wound — that is always unique in its countless details. That is, the organism is facing something that neither it nor its ancestors have ever faced before in just this way. The description is offered by English biologist, Brian Ford: -"Surgery is war. It is impossible to envisage the sheer complexity of what happens within a surgical wound. It is a microscopical scene of devastation. Muscle cells have been crudely crushed, nerves ripped asunder; the scalpel blade has slashed and separated close communities of tissues, rupturing long-established networks of blood vessels. After the operation, broken and cut tissues are crushed together by the surgeon's crude clamps. There is no circulation of blood or lymph across the suture. Yet within seconds of the assault, the single cells are stirred into action. They use unimaginable senses to detect what has happened and start to respond. Stem cells specialize to become the spiky-looking cells of the stratum spinosum; the shattered capillaries are meticulously repaired, new cells form layers of smooth muscle in the blood-vessel walls and neat endothelium; nerve fibres extend towards the site of the suture to restore the tactile senses . . . These phenomena require individual cells to work out what they need to do. And the ingenious restoration of the blood-vessel network reveals that there is an over-arching sense of the structure of the whole area in which this remarkable repair takes place. So too does the restoration of the skin. Cells that carry out the repair are subtly coordinated so that the skin surface, the contour of which they cannot surely detect, is restored in a form that is close to perfect. (Ford 2009) -"It is not being radical to point out that we can't even begin to picture the unfathomable movement of trillions of molecules and millions of cells in the damaged area. The story is directed toward a desirable conclusion that you and I know very well — restoration to normalcy of a damaged body part — but how does the story “hold together” at the level of molecules and cells, which certainly do not “know” what we know? And yet, quite obviously, in some objective sense the necessary knowledge is there in the organism. It knows. It gets the job done."-From one of my favorite authors, Stephen Talbott:- http://www.netfuture.org/2012/May1012_184.html#2
Wound repair
DAVID: From one of my favorite authors, Stephen Talbott:-http://www.netfuture.org/2012/May1012_184.html#2-It seems to me that Talbott is heading very precisely in the direction of organic panpsychism, and I would like to know how he ties it in with evolutionary innovation. You may interpret the article as a pointer to God, though if I remember rightly from our last discussion about his work, Talbott doesn't mention God anywhere. I have selected a few quotes to illustrate his opposition to your mechanistic view of organisms other than humans, right down to cellular level, but you will need to consider them in the light of the second part of this post. -QUOTE: “These [Goodall, Fabre, von Frisch, Portmann, Darwin] were explorers whose receptive minds were flexible instruments open to the mind-like, the meaningful, the striving, the expressive and purposeful, in other creatures.” -QUOTE: “...how does the story “hold together” at the level of molecules and cells, which certainly do not “know” what we know? And yet, quite obviously, in some objective sense the necessary knowledge is there in the organism. It knows. It gets the job done. Distinguishing this knowing from our own is an important task for the biologist4. There can be no thought of our sort of consciousness in the cell, or in the crab, lizard, mouse, or redwood. And yet there clearly is a form of knowledgeable behavior in the cell. [...].”-[I think this is a very important observation, in the light of the sceptic's refusal to accept terms like cognition, thought, decision-making, which we inevitably equate with our own thought systems. Some people simply cannot conceive that there might be other ways of autonomous thinking and communicating and planning and decision-making, and so they embrace the increasingly discredited mechanistic interpretation of organic behaviour.]-QUOTE: “We discover that our highest capacities — our thinking, our formulation of goals and plans, our strivings and passions, our sense of well-being and illness — are objectively imaged in our own biological organism right down to the molecular activity of our cells, as also in the cells of every other living creature. “Where molecular biology once taught us that life is more about the interplay of molecules than we might have previously imagined”, writes biologist and philosopher Lenny Moss, “molecular biology is now beginning to reveal the extent to which macromolecules, with their surprisingly flexible and adaptive complex behavior, turn out to be more life-like than we had previously imagined” (2011). -Now the relevant quotes from a different article: •	Organisms Are Not Machines | Philosophy for Real Life - Bill Meacham http://www.bmeacham.com/blog/?p=1171-QUOTE: “I cannot do justice to Talbott's article in this short summary. I urge you to read it yourself. The upshot is that organisms are not machines and it is a mistake to think of them as if they were. But if they are not machine-like, what are they? How do they function? Talbott's account of organisms contains themes remarkably similar to the process metaphysics of Alfred North Whitehead, which asserts that (a) process is better taken than substance as the most fundamental concept pertaining to all of reality and (b) everything has an aspect of mind as well as matter.”-QUOTE: “Organisms have mind, awareness of their surroundings, and intention, says Talbott. Life has “intrinsic inwardness.” All material phenomena have an “inner nature.” The “idea of the arrangement [of the parts is] actively at work in the parts themselves.” We can certainly understand how an organism can have a mind, because we ourselves are organisms and we are each directly acquainted with our own mind. But what does it mean to say that the idea of the arrangement of the whole is at work in each of the parts? For this to be true, each of the parts must have the ability to entertain an idea, i.e., mind. [...] Talbott asserts that the binding together goes both ways, not just from part to whole, but from whole to part as well. The higher-level mental unity of the whole informs the mentality of each of the parts and gives direction to their growth and development.”-You could hardly have a clearer exposition of how intelligent cells cooperate to create an organ or organism that unifies their intelligences. I'm glad Talbott is one of your favourite authors.
Wound repair
by David Turell , Monday, April 20, 2015, 22:23 (3292 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw:It seems to me that Talbott is heading very precisely in the direction of organic panpsychism, and I would like to know how he ties it in with evolutionary innovation. You may interpret the article as a pointer to God, though if I remember rightly from our last discussion about his work, Talbott doesn't mention God anywhere. - I know. It is just like I favor Nagel's writings. Talbott and Nagel raise the very issues that bring me to my conclusions, but they have none, only very important observations.-> dhw quote: Distinguishing this knowing from our own is an important task for the biologist4. There can be no thought of our sort of consciousness in the cell, or in the crab, lizard, mouse, or redwood. And yet there clearly is a form of knowledgeable behavior in the cell. [...].”[/i]-I agree. "A form of knowledgeable behaviour" may simply be following detailed knowledgeable instructions. > > dhw: [I think this is a very important observation, in the light of the sceptic's refusal to accept terms like cognition, thought, decision-making, which we inevitably equate with our own thought systems. Some people simply cannot conceive that there might be other ways of autonomous thinking and communicating and planning and decision-making, and so they embrace the increasingly discredited mechanistic interpretation of organic behaviour.]-And I've shown you the answer which supports my position. > > dhw: Now the relevant quotes from a different article:-> •	Organisms Are Not Machines | Philosophy for Real Life - Bill Meacham > http://www.bmeacham.com/blog/?p=1171 > > QUOTE: “I cannot do justice to Talbott's article in this short summary. I urge you to read it yourself. The upshot is that organisms are not machines and it is a mistake to think of them as if they were. But if they are not machine-like, what are they? How do they function?-> Talbott's account of organisms contains themes remarkably similar to the process metaphysics of Alfred North Whitehead, which asserts that (a) process is better taken than substance as the most fundamental concept pertaining to all of reality and (b) everything has an aspect of mind as well as matter.”-> > dhw: You could hardly have a clearer exposition of how intelligent cells cooperate to create an organism or organism that unifies their intelligences. I'm glad Talbott is one of your favourite authors.-I've explained why above. He asks questions to which I have answers satisfactory to me. I have the right to my own interpretations of the evidence.
Wound repair
Organisms Are Not Machines | Philosophy for Real Life - Bill Meacham -http://www.bmeacham.com/blog/?p=1171-QUOTES: “I cannot do justice to Talbott's article in this short summary. I urge you to read it yourself. The upshot is that organisms are not machines and it is a mistake to think of them as if they were. But if they are not machine-like, what are they? How do they function?-"Talbott's account of organisms contains themes remarkably similar to the process metaphysics of Alfred North Whitehead, which asserts that (a) process is better taken than substance as the most fundamental concept pertaining to all of reality and (b) everything has an aspect of mind as well as matter.”-“Organisms have mind, awareness of their surroundings, and intentions, says Talbott.”-“The higher-level mental unity of the whole informs the mentality of each of the parts and gives direction to their growth and development.”-dhw: You could hardly have a clearer exposition of how intelligent cells cooperate to create an organ or organism that unifies their intelligences. I'm glad Talbott is one of your favourite authors.-DAVID: I've explained why above. He asks questions to which I have answers satisfactory to me. I have the right to my own interpretations of the evidence.-Talbott is repeating the same interpretation of organic behaviour offered by one scientist after another in modern times. Yes of course, you have the right to disagree with the growing phalanx of scientists and thinkers who believe in the concept of the intelligent cell, as opposed to the automaton. However, I hope you will understand why I can't take your word for it, despite your impeccable credentials as a scientist, doctor, scholar, gentleman, cowboy and friend.
Wound repair
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 22, 2015, 01:39 (3291 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: You could hardly have a clearer exposition of how intelligent cells cooperate to create an organ or organism that unifies their intelligences. I'm glad Talbott is one of your favourite authors. > > DAVID: I've explained why above. He asks questions to which I have answers satisfactory to me. I have the right to my own interpretations of the evidence. > > dhw: Talbott is repeating the same interpretation of organic behaviour offered by one scientist after another in modern times. Yes of course, you have the right to disagree with the growing phalanx of scientists and thinkers who believe in the concept of the intelligent cell, as opposed to the automaton. However, I hope you will understand why I can't take your word for it, despite your impeccable credentials as a scientist, doctor, scholar, gentleman, cowboy and friend.-There is also a growing phalanx of folks who agree with me, and I've shown some of them to you, and your last comment is deeply appreciated. Don't you ever question why I introduce you to folks who reach different conclusions than mine? They raise questions with no current answer, that have more than one way to answer. You don't like my answers. That is fair enough, but throwing those authors back at me also begs the questions they help me raise. Again, without chance there must be something that plans: I pick a mind, you pick a nebulous IM, whose capacity at planning is unknown. You have your faith, I have mine. So far the only item we know that can plan is a mind.
Wound repair
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 22, 2015, 15:02 (3290 days ago) @ David Turell
dhw: However, I hope you will understand why I can't take your word for it, despite your impeccable credentials as a scientist, doctor, scholar, gentleman, cowboy and friend. > > David: There is also a growing phalanx of folks who agree with me, and I've shown some of them to you, and your last comment is deeply appreciated. Don't you ever question why I introduce you to folks who reach different conclusions than mine? They raise questions with no current answer, that have more than one way to answer. You don't like my answers. That is fair enough, but throwing those authors back at me also begs the questions they help me raise. Again, without chance there must be something that plans: I pick a mind, you pick a nebulous IM, whose capacity at planning is unknown. You have your faith, I have mine. So far the only item we know that can plan is a mind.-I am vindicated by a famous statement:- "There's a great line from Galileo, which is: "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.'"-http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzan-mazur/adrian-bejan-interview-gr_b_7089302.html
Wound repair
DAVID: Don't you ever question why I introduce you to folks who reach different conclusions than mine? They raise questions with no current answer, that have more than one way to answer. You don't like my answers. That is fair enough, but throwing those authors back at me also begs the questions they help me raise. Again, without chance there must be something that plans: I pick a mind, you pick a nebulous IM, whose capacity at planning is unknown. You have your faith, I have mine. So far the only item we know that can plan is a mind.-As mentioned under “Evolution v. Creationism”, I do not pick anything, and I certainly do not have faith in any particular answer. I simply hypothesize and try to point out the strengths and weaknesses in all the hypotheses. I am and will always remain immensely grateful to you for continuing my science education, but the master cannot always expect the student to extrapolate the same conclusions from the material he presents. Yes, there is more than one answer, and that is why I remain agnostic. The IM is certainly no more nebulous than your UI, and your assumption that the only possible planning mind is your God's is also open to question. There is a parallel here, once you accept the view that all organic matter has its own form of intelligence. The parallel is with humans. Different human intelligences have come up with a vast variety of inventions, often of astonishing complexity. If you grant different forms of intelligence to different organisms, it stands to reason that there will be a vast variety of living forms, created not by one single mind but by millions of “minds”. But these millions of minds could all have stemmed from just one. Yet again, let me repeat that the theory does not exclude God (see under “Evolution v Creationism”).-DAVID: I am vindicated by a famous statement: "There's a great line from Galileo, which is: "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.'"-I'm delighted to hear that you regard your views as being one in a thousand. But whether you are on a par with Galileo or Flossie Flat-Earth we shall probably never know.-Thank you for all the posts on ants, spiders, and ear drums, all of which fit in perfectly with the idea that cell communities have their own form of intelligence (convergence = different minds faced with similar problems may come up with similar answers). As regards cell communication, there have been lots of articles describing how cells communicate, but they do not explain how cells come to the decisions that result from and then become the subject of their communication.
Wound repair
by David Turell , Thursday, April 23, 2015, 18:50 (3289 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: The IM is certainly no more nebulous than your UI, and your assumption that the only possible planning mind is your God's is also open to question. There is a parallel here, once you accept the view that all organic matter has its own form of intelligence. The parallel is with humans. Different human intelligences have come up with a vast variety of inventions, often of astonishing complexity. If you grant different forms of intelligence to different organisms, it stands to reason that there will be a vast variety of living forms, created not by one single mind but by millions of “minds”. But these millions of minds could all have stemmed from just one. Yet again, let me repeat that the theory does not exclude God (see under “Evolution v Creationism”).-I agree that your IM and God are both beyond proof. And your idea that all organic matter has intelligence runs into my objection that we cannot tell if all we are seeing is on-board information that runs the show. To compare the rest of organic matter to human consciousness is a completely false approach. We do not know that bacteria have minds. All we know is that they respond meaningfully, exact controls unknown. > > DAVID: I am vindicated by a famous statement: > "There's a great line from Galileo, which is: "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.'" > > dhw: I'm delighted to hear that you regard your views as being one in a thousand. But whether you are on a par with Galileo or Flossie Flat-Earth we shall probably never know.-I don't pat myself on the back. I simply have the right to independent thought. > > dhw: Thank you for all the posts on ants, spiders, and ear drums, all of which fit in perfectly with the idea that cell communities have their own form of intelligence ....As regards cell communication, there have been lots of articles describing how cells communicate, but they do not explain how cells come to the decisions that result from and then become the subject of their communication.- I agree. Only in the metabolic molecular algorithms that are described, controls unknown.