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:

> > [b]Animal algorithms[/b]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]Even if Mr Bartlett is like you, and can’t imagine animals and cells having “minds”, what he has written does not in any way weaken the case for cellular intelligence.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]The 'case' is pure opinion as we all are outside the action.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]You accused me of distorting the meaning of the above quotes. I have shown you that they can be used to support the case for cellular intelligence. That is a matter of text interpretation, not of our different opinions on the subject[/i].
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]You will always support cellular innate intelligence as your rigid theory.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: It's not rigid, but see below for my view of it.
> 
> If research shows cellular activities are not automatic, I'll change my view accordingly.
> > 
> > dhw:  [i]And you have offered us quotes which support the possibility of cellular intelligence (we don’t know if they have minds), whereas you think the text is saying they do not have minds.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Coming from an ID source what else should I think. You distort textual meanings to fit your rigid wish for innate cellular intelligence, although when pressed you allow God to give it to cells to use without God's guidance. It that an agnostic balancing act of a fair neutral view of God. I think it is unbalanced.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: You should examine the quote and recognize that it fits in perfectly well with your God giving cells the ability to think. I have not been “pressed” into “allowing” God anything. I am an agnostic, and if the theory of cellular intelligence is true, I acknowledge a 50/50 chance of your God being its designer. What is unbalanced? I also acknowledge that the theory is not proven, and the mystery of life and evolution remains unsolved, but in all honesty I must confess that I find the theory more convincing than the idea of your God preprogramming the whole history of life 3.8 billion years ago, or of him popping in to turn legs into flippers, or to give courses to weaverbirds in nest-building.
> 
> God, the designer can do all of it. And I'll continue asking without God where does cell intelligence come from?