AgnosticWeb.com
Log in
Register
Search:
Back to the entry by David Turell
Post reply
Reply to the message by
David Turell
Name:
E-mail:
(optional, won't be displayed directly)
Leave this field empty:
Homepage:
(optional)
Leave this field empty:
Location:
(optional)
Remember me (cookie)
Category:
Introduction
The atheist delusion
Agnosticism
Evolution
The limitations of science
Origins
The nature of a 'Creator'
Where is it now?
Endings
Identity
Animals
Humans
Religion
Art
Politics
What should be taught in schools?
A mad world
General
Subject:
Formatting help
skip to input
format text bold
[b]bold text[/b]
format text italic
[i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink
[link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color
[color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size
[size=small]small text[/size]
[size=large]large text[/size]
insert list
[list][*]list item[/list]
insert image
[img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(
Message:
> > > dhw: I think all organisms “understand” their surroundings, or they would not be able to survive. Why would that not apply to the earliest cells?-Your statement is correct. Your question is also correct, but doesn't answer the real issue, which we never can really approach: how did first life develop and include the ability to know its surroundings and respond properly, which it must do to survive. Stated another way develop a working living metabolism and a protective response mechanism all at the same time. Can't have one without the other. Still magic to me.- > dhw: Yes, there are different kinds of information everywhere, which is why I find it such a messy and confusing concept. My “favourite” scientists talk of the sentient, cognitive, communicative, decision-making cell. Clear distinctions, but you lump them all together, which I suppose makes it easier for you to assume automatism. -Never meant to be a 'lumper'. You have a problem with information, I don't. And my thoughts about automatism are not based on lumping, but on how responses to information are answered molecularly. > > dhw: What am I “admitting”? On board ‘information' IS the mechanism which processes the information that comes from the outside world. That's why I complain about this woolly use of the word. If I could describe the cell equivalent of the brain, i.e. the intelligent, inventive mechanism that does the processing and coordinates the communication, enabling adaptation and quite possibly also innovation, I would stand alongside Crick and Watson in the Nobel pantheon.-But the job is mostly done. The molecular reactions are mostly described, and the machinery in action is visualized. The issue is: was information used to create the automatic molecular reactions and now is not present as everything is functional, or is the genome reacting with information to be responsive in an ongoing way, as if it has a mind. I prefer the former interpretation, which implies design and God did it. the latter approach seems to avoid God and tries to expect that chance created the responsive abilities.-> dhw: But I am glad you have used the expression “make appropriate choices”. Perhaps now you are “admitting” that cells make choices, as opposed to unfeelingly, unthinkingly, automatically following your God's preprogrammed instructions.-Cells have a list of responses to choose from depending on the type and strength of stimuli. All automatic.
OK - Submit
Preview