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:

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:

> > DAVID: [i]I'm allowed to have my interpretation. You have yours, wishing for innate cellular intelligence.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]Why is an acceptance of the possibility of cellular intelligence called “wishing for”? It is a hypothesis that provides a logical alternative to the unproven hypotheses of random mutations, divine dabbling, and a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for all evolutionary innovations, lifestyles, natural wonders etc. I feel obliged to repeat this every time you slip the word “automatic” into your comments. Yes, you are allowed to have your interpretation, but you can hardly expect me to let you get away with such an authoritative-sounding endorsement of your own subjective belief and rejection of my hypothesis![/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]I'll repeat. Every time a scientist unearths a cell mechanism it is simply a series of molecular reactions. Life runs at very high speed. Each cell is like a production line factory, and they are all designed to be that way. I'll stick with 'automatic' from underlying design.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Scientists CAN only study the molecular reactions that result from thought. 
> 
> Scientists can only define cellular responses as molecular reactions,  no thought is seen.
> 
> > dhw: Many scientists, however, believe that cellular behaviour, manifested by automatic reactions, is directed by a form of autonomous intelligence. And so every time you insert the word “automatic” to indicate absence of intelligence, you will oblige me to point out that this is your subjective belief, which conflicts with the subjective beliefs of many of your fellow scientists.
> 
> Current conclusions on all sides are all subjective. The underlying controlling mechanism  is not yet known. Therefore, 'a form of autonomous intelligence' can be just that or automatically programmed responses. Take your choice. I have mine and you quote scientists who have subjectively disagreed with me. Subjective is subjective. No proof exists now.