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:

> > dhw: [i]There are only two ways you can study any living being: 1) the material workings, and 2) the behavioural. How do you know that human memory, storage of information, communication, ability to change behaviour are not “nothing more” than chemical?[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]At the basis they are chemical also, but the use of charged ions is directed into complex networks of axons and changeable dendrites to create human mental capacities. The bacterial memory is extremely simple arrangement of ions.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]So bacterial intelligence is not as advanced as human intelligence. I think most of us can accept that.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Good[/i].
> > 
> > dhw: [i]Thank you for agreeing that bacterial intelligence is not as advanced as human intelligence. This can only mean that you have agreed that bacteria are intelligent. Progress at last![/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Your view of 'intelligence' is never mine. I'm just trying to be agreeable.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: What attributes would you regard as proof of intelligence?
> 
> The disagreement is that I maintain what looks intelligent can be the result of intelligent instructions
> > 
> > xxxxxxxxxx
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Animals and plants must have protective sensors to recognize problems.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw:[i] As do we. The cognitive part is how they use these sensors to solve the problems – as do we. More progress: animals and plants have their own forms of cognition, memory, communication, information-processing, decision-making etc. – all elements of what we call intelligence.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]And I view these sensors as automatic protections, as usual.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: So do I. Our own sensors are also automatic. As above, “the cognitive part is how they use these sensors to solve the problems – as do we.”
> 
> When you touch a hot stove, your hand is moved before you have thought through what needs be done. That is the automaticity I'm describing.