Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

A Revolution in Evolution

1246789

Comments

  • #92
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Does a computer communicate?

    Let me do an experiment to find out. It feels cold here this morning, colder than usual for this time of year. I wonder what temperature it is? I don't know is the answer, maybe close to 35F. Let me ask my computer: What temperature is it in (where I am)? Blink (actually much less than a blink): "The temperature today in (where I am) is 25F".

    Did my computer just communicate with me or did I just imagine it? Did it just process what I asked it, and give me an answer, an answer I did not have a blink ago?

    There's a research group in Reading (Kevin Warwick's group), who are building robots ran by rat neurons. They take a few neurons from a rat embryo, and then grow them on an array (they grow themselves like all cells, just provide them with nutrients, and off they go connecting themselves in all kinds of elaborate ways. I wonder how they do that without communicating?). The neuron array they grew is 100,000 cells (takes about 5 days) and they use it to communicate with and control a robot using Bluetooth. For their next project they hope to build a 30 million neuron array. Then they want to move on to human neurons and try and build a human brain. I can't wait to see that. I wonder will it be self aware? My bet is no but who knows?

    Your descriptions of neurons have made them sound more like processors than computers.


  • #93
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    gaynorvader wrote: »
    Your descriptions of neurons have made them sound more like processors than computers.

    They have tremendous processing power. Even using the low number of 1,000 synapses per neuron, and 1,000 microprocessors per synapse, that's a million processors per neuron. There are many types of neurons on the brain, some have 10,000 synapses. That's just the synapses that transfer signals from one neuron to another, you also have the neuron body which has to process all the data coming in to it.

    More important though is what is going on in the robot experiment? The rat neurons are learning and adapting to a new environment to do something useful, drive a robot. They are in a jar, not in a rat, so a rudimentary brain in a vat! There is some amazing research that has been done with ferret brains, they rewired their optic nerves to the hearing centers of their brains, their brains rewired themselves and they developed 20:60 vision.

    Warwick is an interesting character, you should check him out if your not familiar with him. He is determined to become a cyborg.

    http://www.kevinwarwick.com/ICyborg.htm


  • #94
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    nagirrac wrote: »
    They have tremendous processing power. Even using the low number of 1,000 synapses per neuron, and 1,000 microprocessors per synapse, that's a million processors per neuron. There are many types of neurons on the brain, some have 10,000 synapses. That's just the synapses that transfer signals from one neuron to another, you also have the neuron body which has to process all the data coming in to it.

    {...}

    A synapse is a connection to another neuron is it not? It's more equivalent to a bus and wouldn't have microprocessors on it.

    I will look into Warwick when I get the chance, thanks it sounds interesting. :)


  • #95
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    gaynorvader wrote: »
    A synapse is a connection to another neuron is it not? It's more equivalent to a bus and wouldn't have microprocessors on it.

    According to this lad, Prof. Stephen Smith at Stanford, a single synapse is the equivalent of a microprocessor.

    "One synapse, by itself, is like a microprocessor, with both memory storage and information processing capability. In fact, one synapse can contain of the order of 1,000 switches."

    http://smithlab.stanford.edu/Smithlab/Smithlab_Home.html

    Professor Stephen Smith,


  • #96
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,858 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Does a computer communicate?

    No, but people communicate with computers.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    No, but people communicate with computers.


    So when my computer spoke back to me this morning and told me the local temperature it was not communicating? It recognized my voice and responded. What was it doing?


  • #98
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    nagirrac wrote: »
    So when my computer spoke back to me this morning and told me the local temperature it was not communicating? It recognized my voice and responded. What was it doing?

    I think it was communicating in the computing sense of the word. But in the sense that it understood the information, it was not communicating. It's similar to a parrot imitating speech, it doesn't really understand what it's saying.
    Your computer received data (your voice), checked it against a database of possible commands, matched it with one and ran the process associated with that command.


  • #99
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,168 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    nagirrac wrote: »
    So when my computer spoke back to me this morning and told me the local temperature it was not communicating? It recognized my voice and responded. What was it doing?

    Processing your request for data and displaying the pertinent information.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #100
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    gaynorvader wrote: »
    I think it was communicating in the computing sense of the word. But in the sense that it understood the information, it was not communicating. It's similar to a parrot imitating speech, it doesn't really understand what it's saying.
    Your computer received data (your voice), checked it against a database of possible commands, matched it with one and ran the process associated with that command.

    I agree, but understanding information is a separate attribute of intelligence from communication. A few pages up posters were disagreeing that a neuron communicates, but my point is it communicates in the same fashion as a computer i.e. data in, processing, information out. Nothing that we would call cognitive function. The big challenge for AI is duplicating cognitive function.

    Keep in mind though that most modern neuroscientists believe that our brains are nothing more than very sophisticated computers, and that what we think of as consciousness (free will, etc) is just an epiphenomenon. It is all just data in, comparison to databases, processing and output, just at an incredibly sophisticated level that creates the illusion we are in control.


  • #101
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,858 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    nagirrac wrote: »
    I agree, but understanding information is a separate attribute of intelligence from communication. A few pages up posters were disagreeing that a neuron communicates, but my point is it communicates in the same fashion as a computer i.e. data in, processing, information out. Nothing that we would call cognitive function.

    The posters were disagreeing with you in the light of your previous post where you said "communicate" along with "problem solve", and then extrapolate this to imply intelligence, with its associated implications of abstract thought and self awareness. Neurons do not communicate in any way that has any reflection on intelligence. Your use of the word "communication" emotively anthropomorphizes cells, my use of "interacts" is impartial and therefore more appropriate to a scientific discussion..


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The posters were disagreeing with you in the light of your previous post where you said "communicate" along with "problem solve", and then extrapolate this to imply intelligence, with its associated implications of abstract thought and self awareness. Neurons do not communicate in any way that has any reflection on intelligence. Your use of the word "communication" emotively anthropomorphizes cells, my use of "interacts" is impartial and therefore more appropriate to a scientific discussion..


    Either you are not reading my posts fully or not understanding them fully. I am tending towards the latter, as it took four pages for you to admit that neurons communicate. In my prior post you reference above, I was very careful to not extrapolate, but to be specific about what attributes of intelligence were exhibited by cells, as intelligence is a complex word with many attributes. Nowhere did I suggest cells are self-aware or capable of abstract thought.

    To anthropomorphize means to attribute human qualities to entities like animals, natural phenomena and inanimate objects. Are you seriously trying to suggest intelligence is solely a human trait? Is a dog intelligent? When I say a dog is intelligent it does not mean I am attributing all human aspects of intelligence to said dog, but said dog is still intelligent by most of the attributes that are used to describe intelligence.

    So, back on topic (again), if neurons "do not communicate in any way that has any reflection on intelligence", how does your intelligence arise? Think about it, "you" and "I" are a pack of neurons, how does intelligence arise? Magic?

    "Interact" btw is not a word you will see scientists in the fields of molecular biology or neuroscience ever use. These use the word "communication" all the time. Here's an example, would you accuse the NIH of anthropomorphizing cells?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26813/


  • #103
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Nagirrac ... what do you think of David Dobbs 'take' on the 'selfish gene' not being capable of being selfish after all ... and its the expression rather than the gene per se that is important?

    http://aeon.co/magazine/nature-and-cosmos/why-its-time-to-lay-the-selfish-gene-to-rest/

    Is this part of the 'revolution in evolution' that you are speaking of?


  • #104
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,858 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Either you are not reading my posts fully or not understanding them fully. I am tending towards the latter, as it took four pages for you to admit that neurons communicate. In my prior post you reference above, I was very careful to not extrapolate, but to be specific about what attributes of intelligence were exhibited by cells, as intelligence is a complex word with many attributes. Nowhere did I suggest cells are self-aware or capable of abstract thought.

    You said you believed that phenotypic plasticity and epigenetic inheritance appears intelligently driven and then you listed several aspects to intelligence (abstract thought, logic etc.). Why include that whole list if you only meant one or two aspects? Its because you are trying to imply all or most of the aspects are present, but you can only justify one or two with extremely semantic arguments. If this is not the case then you still haven't answered my question: what aspects of phenotypic plasticity and epigenetic inheritance make them appear intelligently driven to you? Neurons interacting (despite what you call it) do not do so intelligently, they do so mindlessly because they are unintelligent.

    I am reading your posts, and I am understanding exactly what you are saying.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    To anthropomorphize means to attribute human qualities to entities like animals, natural phenomena and inanimate objects. Are you seriously trying to suggest intelligence is solely a human trait? Is a dog intelligent? When I say a dog is intelligent it does not mean I am attributing all human aspects of intelligence to said dog, but said dog is still intelligent by most of the attributes that are used to describe intelligence.

    The level of intelligence you are ascribing to cells is a human trait. And even if you are more implying an animal level intelligence, its certainly not a trait of individual cells.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    So, back on topic (again), if neurons "do not communicate in any way that has any reflection on intelligence", how does your intelligence arise? Think about it, "you" and "I" are a pack of neurons, how does intelligence arise? Magic?

    Intelligence arises from the vast multitude of neurons interacting together, but that does not mean individual neurons are intelligent. I said this already, a single molecule of water is not wet.

    Also, you are now changing your argument from neurons communicating to neurons reflecting all of a humans intelligence (abstract thinking, logic etc.). You are changing the terms you are using in order to (badly) try and twist this argument your way.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    "Interact" btw is not a word you will see scientists in the fields of molecular biology or neuroscience ever use. These use the word "communication" all the time. Here's an example, would you accuse the NIH of anthropomorphizing cells?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26813/

    They are not using the term "communicating" to imply intelligence in cells, so no.


  • #105
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You said you believed that phenotypic plasticity and epigenetic inheritance appears intelligently driven and then you listed several aspects to intelligence (abstract thought, logic etc.). Why include that whole list if you only meant one or two aspects? Its because you are trying to imply all or most of the aspects are present, but you can only justify one or two with extremely semantic arguments.

    When I use a word, especially in this forum where everyone is on constant lookout for any scent of religious inspired wording, I try and define it in the context I am using it. If I merely say intelligence, someone (Mark Hamill for example), will accuse me of anthropomorphizing nature, even though I have never mentioned human intelligence once or implied it. I am talking about basic cellular intelligence and was very careful to outline its attributes. It may have other attributes, but we cannot make any scientific claims about these as yet.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    If this is not the case then you still haven't answered my question: what aspects of phenotypic plasticity and epigenetic inheritance make them appear intelligently driven to you? Neurons interacting (despite what you call it) do not do so intelligently, they do so mindlessly because they are unintelligent

    The basic scientific fact is that cells are adaptive during their lifespan (uncontested scientifically) i.e. change in response to a changing environment, and also that some acquired adaptations are inherited (demonstrated scientifically, but controversial to some scientists). Let me define cellular intelligence another way for you, which might explain what is meant by basic cellular intelligence better; "intelligence is an ability to solve problems autonomously". There is no comparison between what a cell does, any cell, and what two bodies orbiting in space do. If neurons were not intelligent in terms of basic cellular intelligence, you Mark Hamill could not be intelligent, in the same way if a single microprocessor could not process data, a computer could not do the enormous tasks it can accomplish. All the vast network of axons in your brain are just passing signals around, it is the neurons that do all the processing, different types of neurons for different types of processing, and vast numbers doing parallel processing, but that's it.

    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Also, you are now changing your argument from neurons communicating to neurons reflecting all of a humans intelligence (abstract thinking, logic etc.). You are changing the terms you are using in order to (badly) try and twist this argument your way.. They are not using the term "communicating" to imply intelligence in cells, so no.

    Ha, talk about changing an argument. Your exact words in your prior post were "your use of the word communication emotively anthropomorphizes cells, my use of "interacts" is impartial and therefore more appropriate to a scientific conversation". You distinctly say that the word "communication" is inappropriate for a scientific conversation regarding cells (because communication apparently is something cells cannot do, as you have argued now for several posts), while the reality is every Molecular Biology or Cellular Biology textbook you pick up has a chapter or chapters on cellular communication.

    I would encourage you to read the following article, which explains the concept of basic intelligence better than I can, and then we can hopefully continue productively.

    http://www.science20.com/thor_russell/blog/basic_intelligence_and_amazing_ability_neurons-87866


  • #106
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    J C wrote: »
    Nagirrac ... what do you think of David Dobbs 'take' on the 'selfish gene' not being capable of being selfish after all ... and its the expression rather than the gene per se that is important?

    http://aeon.co/magazine/nature-and-cosmos/why-its-time-to-lay-the-selfish-gene-to-rest/

    Is this part of the 'revolution in evolution' that you are speaking of?

    I will read it over the weekend and comment. Dawkins' "Selfish Gene" metaphor is one of the most misunderstood in all of popular science writing.


  • #107
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    Dawkins replies here;

    http://bit.ly/18pSi4g

    And also has linked to this rebuttal.

    http://bit.ly/193b31c


  • #108
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,858 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    nagirrac wrote: »
    If I merely say intelligence, someone (Mark Hamill for example), will accuse me of anthropomorphizing nature, even though I have never mentioned human intelligence once or implied it. I am talking about basic cellular intelligence and was very careful to outline its attributes.

    Except when you did imply it, in your previous post to me where you said:
    "if neurons "do not communicate in any way that has any reflection on intelligence", how does your intelligence arise? "
    You flip-flop between different implications of intelligence when it suits your argument. You do it again in this very post:
    "If neurons were not intelligent in terms of basic cellular intelligence, you Mark Hamill could not be intelligent"
    nagirrac wrote: »
    The basic scientific fact is that cells are adaptive during their lifespan (uncontested scientifically) i.e. change in response to a changing environment, and also that some acquired adaptations are inherited (demonstrated scientifically, but controversial to some scientists).

    Get a rubber ball and squeeze it with two fingers. It changes its shape where you squeeze it (ie in response to its environment). Keep doing and eventually the points where you squeeze become easier and easier to squeeze as the material in just the spots you are squeezing loses their elasticity (adaptation is inherited). No intelligence of any kind involved, merely the right physical conditions for a external pressure to be permanently expressed on a malleable material.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    Let me define cellular intelligence another way for you, which might explain what is meant by basic cellular intelligence better; "intelligence is an ability to solve problems autonomously".

    Except they aren't solving problems. They are reacting to external pressures from the environment that results in reactions in the cell that will either change or destroy the cell. Does a rain drop flowing along a leave "solve the problem" of the leaf being an obstacle in its path?
    nagirrac wrote: »
    Ha, talk about changing an argument. Your exact words in your prior post were "your use of the word communication emotively anthropomorphizes cells, my use of "interacts" is impartial and therefore more appropriate to a scientific conversation". You distinctly say that the word "communication" is inappropriate for a scientific conversation regarding cells (because communication apparently is something cells cannot do, as you have argued now for several posts), while the reality is every Molecular Biology or Cellular Biology textbook you pick up has a chapter or chapters on cellular communication.

    Actually, I said that your use of communications emotively anthropomorphizes the argument and that my use is better for this scientific discussion. The article you linked to previously does not use "communicates" in the same way you do, to imply what you are implying.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    I would encourage you to read the following article, which explains the concept of basic intelligence better than I can, and then we can hopefully continue productively.

    http://www.science20.com/thor_russell/blog/basic_intelligence_and_amazing_ability_neurons-87866

    From the very first paragraph:
    "I will write a series of articles on intelligence, starting at the level where organisms can learn, and call it basic intelligence."
    The writer just picks some aspects of neurons and says they form a basic intelligence, basic intelligence being something he then defines as anything which has those characteristics. He is doing the exact same thing as you and is therefore as wrong as you are.


  • #109
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    The David Dobbs' article is dreadful, one of the worst pieces of scientific journalism I have seen. It is the equivalent of a slow pitch over center plate, inviting Richard Dawkins and in particular Jerry Coyne to hit it out of the ballpark, which they do with ease.

    The "Selfish Gene" metaphor is an unfortunate one due to the common understanding of the term "selfish". Dawkins himself has said that more appropriate word would have been "Immortal Gene" or "Cooperative Gene".
    When organisms die, their genome dies with them, the only thing that is preserved are strands of DNA called genes. These are the genetic toolkit that a new organism uses to build its phenotype, using the gene expression mechanisms Dobbs article focusses on. The gene-centric or "selfish gene" theory as developed by W.D. Hamilton and others, simply states that as phenotypes with an adaptive advantage propagate in populations, these stands of DNA spread out across the ecosystem. What has evolved over the years since "The Selfish Gene" was first published is that the concept of the "gene" has been expanded, which is why Dawkins has written several books on the subject, as evolutionary theory gets updated.

    Dobbs' article hints at epigenetics throughout, yet he never utters the terms epigenetics, which is the main challenge to the gene centered view. Dawkins does not even have to mention epigenetics in his response, and Coyne dismisses it with his usual aplomb. More telling than the article itself are the comments beneath the article and the comments on Coyne's blog where epigenetic inheritance is dismissed out of hand, totally oblivious to all the research that has been published in the past 5 - 7 years. Yes its still early days, but the critics tellingly first stated that epigenetic inheritance didn't happen, and are now focused on the fact epigenetic inheritance has only really been demonstrated in studies involving plants, forgetting that our entire genetic theory was based on Mendel's work on peas. Well, we are now up to mice so it seems to be a quite serious matter for the denialists. It is a classic example of how slowly a new theory gains acceptance. Epigenetics is not going to replace the current theory of evolution, but it will in my opinion greatly expand it.

    If Dobbs was serious or knew his subject matter he would have interviewed Eva Jablonka, or any of the other leading researchers in epigenetics, and allowed them explain what he obviously does not understand. A good article needs to be written on the subject, this is not it.


  • #110
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    nagirrac wrote: »
    The David Dobbs' article is dreadful, one of the worst pieces of scientific journalism I have seen. It is the equivalent of a slow pitch over center plate, inviting Richard Dawkins and in particular Jerry Coyne to hit it out of the ballpark, which they do with ease.

    The "Selfish Gene" metaphor is an unfortunate one due to the common understanding of the term "selfish". Dawkins himself has said that more appropriate word would have been "Immortal Gene" or "Cooperative Gene".
    When organisms die, their genome dies with them, the only thing that is preserved are strands of DNA called genes. These are the genetic toolkit that a new organism uses to build its phenotype, using the gene expression mechanisms Dobbs article focusses on. The gene-centric or "selfish gene" theory as developed by W.D. Hamilton and others, simply states that as phenotypes with an adaptive advantage propagate in populations, these stands of DNA spread out across the ecosystem. What has evolved over the years since "The Selfish Gene" was first published is that the concept of the "gene" has been expanded, which is why Dawkins has written several books on the subject, as evolutionary theory gets updated.

    Dobbs' article hints at epigenetics throughout, yet he never utters the terms epigenetics, which is the main challenge to the gene centered view. Dawkins does not even have to mention epigenetics in his response, and Coyne dismisses it with his usual aplomb. More telling than the article itself are the comments beneath the article and the comments on Coyne's blog where epigenetic inheritance is dismissed out of hand, totally oblivious to all the research that has been published in the past 5 - 7 years. Yes its still early days, but the critics tellingly first stated that epigenetic inheritance didn't happen, and are now focused on the fact epigenetic inheritance has only really been demonstrated in studies involving plants, forgetting that our entire genetic theory was based on Mendel's work on peas. Well, we are now up to mice so it seems to be a quite serious matter for the denialists. It is a classic example of how slowly a new theory gains acceptance. Epigenetics is not going to replace the current theory of evolution, but it will in my opinion greatly expand it.

    If Dobbs was serious or knew his subject matter he would have interviewed Eva Jablonka, or any of the other leading researchers in epigenetics, and allowed them explain what he obviously does not understand. A good article needs to be written on the subject, this is not it.
    Dobbs observations about the Locust/Grasshopper epigenetic shifts are interesting.
    I agree that Dobbs didn't mention the word 'epigenetics' ... but what he described is epigenetics in action.

    Here is a very interesting video on the topic of epigenetics by Prof Eva Jablonka ... looks like Lamark may have had a point after all.



  • #111
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You flip-flop between different implications of intelligence when it suits your argument. You do it again in this very post.

    "Attributes" not "implications". Do you understand that intelligence is not a simple thing to define, and how intelligence arises is one of the most challenging questions facing science? It sound like you are the one who believes in magic, no intelligence followed by (clicks fingers) human intelligence. Like everything in biology, all complex structures and attributes of those structures arise from simpler structures. Intelligence is no different, hence basic intelligence with a small number of attributes evolving over time to human intelligence with lots of attributes.

    I think you are advocating constraining science by philosophy (or ideology?). A materialistic view of nature or a dualist view of nature are just that, views, you know things that we have been wrong about constantly in human evolution. When a scientific theory becomes truth in someone's mind, it becomes dogma. The quest to understand how intelligence arose it is of course a scientific endeavor. Whether what we call "life" arose from completely random processes or is somehow "self learning" as it goes along and adapts itself as new challenges arise, is a completely open metaphysical question. Unless you view the science and scientists involved in the study of "self learning by organisms" pseudoscience and pseudoscientists, a difficult to support claim. Is James Shapiro not a "proper scientist" in your view, and if you think he is wrong in his theory of "natural Genetic Engineering", can you outline why he is wrong?

    I think sometimes that a lot of people do not understand evolution, and the views that you are expressing somehow support them. Evolution to many seems to mean "we are descended from monkeys, therefore... (insert ideology)". The theory of evolution attempts to explain the underlying mechanisms of how evolution occurs. It is not a philosophy, like many want to present it on both extremes of the debate. If all the evidence were that these mechanisms are completely random, that's one thing, but we have evidence that they can also be adaptive. We will just have to live with that, it's science. Just like people had to live with the idea that the earth was not the center of the universe.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Get a rubber ball and squeeze it with two fingers. It changes its shape where you squeeze it (ie in response to its environment). Keep doing and eventually the points where you squeeze become easier and easier to squeeze as the material in just the spots you are squeezing loses their elasticity (adaptation is inherited). No intelligence of any kind involved, merely the right physical conditions for a external pressure to be permanently expressed on a malleable material.

    Possibly the worst analogy I have even seen used in scientific discussion. A closer, but just as daft an idea, is that because you squeeze one rubber ball, the one next to it also loses elasticity. I would question whether you fully understand what inherited means, and this what is meant by an "adaptation that is inherited"? It means traits are passed from parent to offspring. How this happens is what this whole thread is about, and the resistance of some to the idea that acquired characteristics can be inherited.

    Why do you think that resistance to an emerging theory is so strong? It's just another mechanism in the long series of discoveries regarding evolutionary mechanisms. In fact, let's focus on that specific question. Do you accept that acquired characteristics can be inherited? If so, what mechanism do think best explains this?

    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    From the very first paragraph:
    "I will write a series of articles on intelligence, starting at the level where organisms can learn, and call it basic intelligence."
    He is doing the exact same thing as you and is therefore as wrong as you are.

    Organism learn. He is putting limits around his subject matter; "organisms that can learn" as the starting point for "basic intelligence", and clearly defining the attributes of "organisms that can learn". It's a good article, and many of the responses in favor and against in the comments are excellent, indicating the scientific challenges poses by the question of how intelligence arose.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,858 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    nagirrac wrote: »
    "Attributes" not "implications".

    No, implications. Hell, in some earlier posts, not even implications, but straight up assertions:
    "Any living cell, regardless of the organism it is part of, is an incredibly intelligent, purpose driven entity"
    nagirrac wrote: »
    It sound like you are the one who believes in magic, no intelligence followed by (clicks fingers) human intelligence.

    This is so stupidly insulting I'm wondering why I don't report it.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    Like everything in biology, all complex structures and attributes of those structures arise from simpler structures.

    Not quite. The attributes of those complex structures arise from the configuration of multitudes of simpler structures interacting together. This is an incredibly simple concept to understand and show - water and hydrogen peroxide are both made of the same basic elements (hydrogen and oxygen) but the configuration of how they are bound together makes one drinkable and the other toxic. This concept equally (if not more so) applies to examples of great complexity too - thalidomide is actually two enantiomers (molecules which are exact mirror images of each other down to the atom), one being an effective morning sickness treatment and the other being the cause of birth defects. Two polymer samples of the exact same monomer can have different properties depending on how the repeating units are branched, on how the monomers orientate relative to each other or even the average length of the polymer chain.

    Or to put a different way: a molecule of water is not wet.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    Possibly the worst analogy I have even seen used in scientific discussion. A closer, but just as daft an idea, is that because you squeeze one rubber ball, the one next to it also loses elasticity. I would question whether you fully understand what inherited means, and this what is meant by an "adaptation that is inherited"? It means traits are passed from parent to offspring. How this happens is what this whole thread is about, and the resistance of some to the idea that acquired characteristics can be inherited.

    Why do you think that resistance to an emerging theory is so strong? It's just another mechanism in the long series of discoveries regarding evolutionary mechanisms. In fact, let's focus on that specific question. Do you accept that acquired characteristics can be inherited? If so, what mechanism do think best explains this?

    Nothing in what you quoted implies in any way says that I don't accept that acquired characteristics can be inherited. The point behind my analogy was that: "No intelligence of any kind involved, merely the right physical conditions for a external pressure to be permanently expressed on a malleable material". I left out a reproduction aspect because it was an analogy, I was keeping it simple.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    Organism learn. He is putting limits around his subject matter; "organisms that can learn" as the starting point for "basic intelligence", and clearly defining the attributes of "organisms that can learn". It's a good article, and many of the responses in favor and against in the comments are excellent, indicating the scientific challenges poses by the question of how intelligence arose.

    Actually, he does it the way I said he did it, which you edited out of your quote. To repeat myself: "The writer just picks some aspects of neurons and says they form a basic intelligence, basic intelligence being something he then defines as anything which has those characteristics."
    It doesn't matter though, because of the bit of my previous post that you did leave in: he is making the same argument as you. Arguing against his article would just be me repeating myself.


  • #113
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The point behind my analogy was that: "No intelligence of any kind involved, merely the right physical conditions for a external pressure to be permanently expressed on a malleable material". I left out a reproduction aspect because it was an analogy, I was keeping it simple.

    .. and to try and refocus this discussion, this is exactly the disagreement between us. "No intelligence of any kind involved" is a statement that no biologist in any field of biology other than a hardcore evolutionary biologist (like Jerry Coyne) would utter. Neuroscientists for example have defined "basic intelligence" in exactly the way I have in our conversation.

    It is really quite telling that all your examples are of inanimate objects. Biology is the study of living organisms. My view is that all living organisms are intelligent, which is not a philosophical statement, it is a scientific hypothesis shared by many scientists, and is supported by scientific evidence. Are you perhaps confusing intelligence with consciousness? Forget about whether an organism is self aware or "thinks", science cannot currently agree on why humans have this attribute or how it emerged in our evolution. Most attempts to explain away human consciousness are absolute gibberish.

    Intelligence, in the context I am using it for living organisms, is "an aspect of complex adaptive behavior that provides a capacity for problem solving" (from the attached summary of a research paper that concludes plants exhibit basic intelligence). I understand it does not fit well with a materialist genetic fatalist view of the world, as the emergence of life from inanimate matter and all subsequent evolution of life must be (literally "has to be"), due to underlying random events (random mutation, random drift, lateral genetic drift). This is the view that has become dominant in our Western culture slowly but surely since the mid 19th century. However, it is unsurprising that we would absorb this view as it ironically is entirely consistent with the historic swollen ego of Christianity which views the only possible intelligence in nature as human intelligence.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16054860


  • #114
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,858 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    nagirrac wrote: »
    .. and to try and refocus this discussion, this is exactly the disagreement between us.

    No, nagirrac, you don't get to dump the rest of my post because you have no answer for it. You have spent this entire conversation bouncing back between implication and attribute (having started from assertion) and are incredibly lacking in understanding how properties of a sample come from more than the base chemical make up of said sample.
    Why should I continue with this debate when this running from difficulty is what I can expect from you?
    You say this now:
    nagirrac wrote: »
    Are you perhaps confusing intelligence with consciousness? Forget about whether an organism is self aware or "thinks", science cannot currently agree on why humans have this attribute or how it emerged in our evolution. Most attempts to explain away human consciousness are absolute gibberish.

    Intelligence, in the context I am using it for living organisms, is "an aspect of complex adaptive behavior that provides a capacity for problem solving" (from the attached summary of a research paper that concludes plants exhibit basic intelligence).
    But you earlier said:
    Any living cell, regardless of the organism it is part of, is an incredibly intelligent, purpose driven entity
    and
    if neurons "do not communicate in any way that has any reflection on intelligence", how does your intelligence arise?

    You are arguing for conciousness and human level intelligence in cells. You have already given it away.

    You are supposed to start with the most generic, loosest definitions, get people to agree that (in the absolutely most general terms) X can be applied in Y, and then you pounce with the non-sequitor that this means that Y is sentient, or evidence of god or whatever. That's how junk like this goes. It doesn't work if you do it backwards, if we can see it coming.


  • #115
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You are arguing for conciousness and human level intelligence in cells. You have already given it away.

    No, I am not, and it is dishonest for you to make that claim.. and inexcusable to bring God into the discussion when there has been no mention of God. This thread is not an attempt to "prove God", if you want to discuss God then let's do so on the "Atheism/Existence of God" thread. This thread is an attempt to expand the discussion of the theory of evolution, incorporating recent research, and try and break away from the creationist/atheist clusterfcuk thread. You seem determined though to make it another creationist thread, for reasons only known to yourself.

    We are now getting to the root of your real issue, the belief that a subset of atheists hold to that science is somehow on their side, frankly a debate I find extremely boring. To them, any reference to "intelligence" in nature, by definition, has to invoke God somehow. Why? Is it such a threat to atheism that it must be repelled. When did science declare itself on the side of atheists? So what if nature is intelligent? Does it strike fear into your heart or something? There are a myriad of reasons why nature may be intelligent, most of them we probably have not even thought of yet.

    From the Hitchens discussion, you appear a stickler for not taking quotes out of context. I would ask you to do the same here. If you read my complete posts where you lifted the three quotes from, and understood the context, you would see there is no contradiction.. and no suggestion of God either.


  • #116
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    Teleology/purpose in evolution is boll*cks. Crocodile generations shrink in response to a harsh habitat. Dutch children born after the war were smaller. THEY DO NOT CHANGE THEIR SHAPE.


  • #117
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    nagirrac wrote: »
    There are a myriad of reasons why nature may be intelligent, most of them we probably have not even thought of yet.
    Can you please define "intelligence"?


  • #118
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    nagirrac wrote: »
    What has evolved over the years since "The Selfish Gene" was first published is that the concept of the "gene" has been expanded
    I agree with that, there are different definitions around; originally it meant a trait, or an allele causing a trait, everything else was "junk DNA".
    Then it came to mean a sequence of DNA code with the potential to synthesise a protein, which could cause a trait, whether that trait was expressed or not.

    nagirrac wrote: »
    Dobbs' article hints at epigenetics throughout, yet he never utters the terms epigenetics, which is the main challenge to the gene centered view.
    I don't think epigenetics is a threat to the gene-centric view. It re-introduces the lamarckian concept that individuals may be able to alter the genetic heritage that they pass on to the next generation. It is significant that this genetic change could occur within the lifespan of one individual, depending on their actions, or reactions to the environment. It does not alter the concept that the "expression of the gene" ie. "the trait" is heritable and is selected through natural selection.
    But the next generation will still be formed from the genetic instructions in their inherited DNA, combined with the environmental factors acting on them. Business as usual.

    Dobbs is an eejit for insinuating that it was only in the last 20 years that people discovered that grasshoppers and locusts are alternative forms that can occur within the same species.


  • #119
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,858 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    nagirrac wrote: »
    No, I am not, and it is dishonest for you to make that claim.. and inexcusable to bring God into the discussion when there has been no mention of God. This thread is not an attempt to "prove God", if you want to discuss God then let's do so on the "Atheism/Existence of God" thread. This thread is an attempt to expand the discussion of the theory of evolution, incorporating recent research, and try and break away from the creationist/atheist clusterfcuk thread. You seem determined though to make it another creationist thread, for reasons only known to yourself.

    We are now getting to the root of your real issue, the belief that a subset of atheists hold to that science is somehow on their side, frankly a debate I find extremely boring. To them, any reference to "intelligence" in nature, by definition, has to invoke God somehow. Why? Is it such a threat to atheism that it must be repelled. When did science declare itself on the side of atheists? So what if nature is intelligent? Does it strike fear into your heart or something? There are a myriad of reasons why nature may be intelligent, most of them we probably have not even thought of yet.

    From the Hitchens discussion, you appear a stickler for not taking quotes out of context. I would ask you to do the same here. If you read my complete posts where you lifted the three quotes from, and understood the context, you would see there is no contradiction.. and no suggestion of God either.

    And know we have the other tactic usually used in threads of this sort: Take a word or phrase used in a throwaway fashion (I said "[to show that] Y is sentient, or evidence of god or whatever", because I was demonstrating how these sort of threads, which usually but not always argue for god, go on this forum) and plough it into the ground as if that is all the poster said and if they were saying it specifically about this thread. But its pointless to do this if you don't have any agreement from the other poster to fall back on in the first place, and you wont get agreement from a poster who knows you are being disingenuous with what you are claiming to argue for.

    You've rumbled yourself nagirrac, pretty much from the start. I've quoted the places you've done it. And no, quoting more of the same posts doesn't change their contexts.


  • #120
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    robindch wrote: »
    Can you please define "intelligence"?

    An excellent question robin, and hopefully one that can rescue this thread from the abyss.

    From wiki, intelligence is a word that has been defined in numerous ways: "communication, learning, retaining (memory), emotional knowledge, planning, problem solving, understanding, logic, abstract thought, and self awareness".

    In total, I would agree this is a reasonable listing of attributes that add up to what we call human intelligence. However, these attributes, singly or in groups, are not isolated to humans. How many of the above attributes does for example a dog exhibit? I would say the first 7 and the remaining 3 are largely unknown. Whether any other species is self aware is an interesting question (my dog barks at her reflection occasionally, but it could be mistaken identity:)), how would we know being the most relevant question.

    So, the key question is at what point in the evolution of life did intelligence emerge"? If we start with pond slime, one of our favorites, the attached article demonstrates the primitive intelligence of a unicellular organism. The attributes of intelligence demonstrated are learning and memory. Nobody in their right mind is going to say this is the same as human intelligence, but it is intelligent behavior. It is an organism demonstrating "an aspect of complex adaptive behavior that provides a capacity for problem solving". From organisms that evolved 2 billion years ago.

    http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080123/full/451385a.html


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    HansHolzel wrote: »
    Teleology/purpose in evolution is boll*cks. Crocodile generations shrink in response to a harsh habitat. Dutch children born after the war were smaller. THEY DO NOT CHANGE THEIR SHAPE.

    Look who stopped by. Did you find any ghosts yet:D?

    Why were some Dutch children born after the war smaller? I will dig up the link later but the evidence from the Dutch Hunger Winter study resulted in one of the earliest examples of epigenetic inheritance in humans (along with an earlier Swedish study). Children born from mothers who were exposed to famine were found to have different levels of methyl groups attached to their IGF2 genes (related to body growth), which resulted not just in them being smaller, but a host of other health problems, indicating a change in gene expression of IGF2. The adults were studied 6 decades later and compared to siblings born at different times. The study is pretty conclusive, changes to the epigenome of the mother due to famine resulted in changes in gene expression of their children.

    You do realize that all morphological (shape) changes in organisms are by and large due to changes in gene expression. In the first example given by Dobbs, the grasshopper species in question and the locust have the same genome, but gene expression changes stimulated by their environment leads to two version of the same organism with different "shapes". The genes are best understood as a lego set, and gene expression as the instructions to build a house or a car or whatever.


Advertisement