slime mold intelligence transfers (Introduction)

by David Turell , Saturday, December 31, 2016, 16:11 (2664 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I have no problem with the concept of 'information', but I do not like the conflation of information with whatever it is that controls the use of the information, as epitomized by your next comment and the one that follows, concerning molecular reactions:

DAVID: The process is entirely automatic in its use of the original information. All of the articles I present in the thread of genetic complexity shows this.

dhw: Once again, you refuse to define intelligence, and simply repeat your conviction that all cellular processes are automatic (and therefore can only have originated through divine programming or intervention). Of course many of the processes are now automatic, but there are research scientists who study cellular behaviour by setting problems devised in order to test these microorganisms. Some have concluded that cells are intelligent beings according to the definition of intelligence that they and I have proposed. 50/50 is the best I can offer you.

I fully understand your definition of intelligence and it fits the function of single-celled animals. I use the same definition as you, and your acceptance of the 50/50 observation I use, in an indirect way admits that I might be right 50/50.

DAVID: You are perfectly correct. From the outside it is either/or, 50/50%. But that does not tell us what is truly happening on the inside. I have pointed out over and over that all that is ever found is molecular reactions when looking inside. Those reactions are guided by information in all the layers of the genome, only a portion of which are fully understood so far. My opinion of 100% is my prediction for the endpoint of full understanding of how living cells work.

dhw: And I have pointed out over and over again that scientists can ONLY study molecular reactions, even in their attempts to understand the source of human intelligence. I don’t have a problem with your prediction that your unproven prejudices will be confirmed. Dawkins has the same approach to science. My objection is to his and your dismissal of alternative unproven explanations that do not fit in with his/your prejudices.

'Alternative unproven explanations' are nebulous propositions. They may fit your logical review of factual material, but they do not fit my logical interpretations. We will remain apart.