Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: stevewillie on 11/09/2008 01:35:57
-
This is not a new theory, but simply a view on what the word "intelligence" actually means or seems to mean. In artificial intelligence(AI) research the Turing Test definition is still the standard, a least in terms of whether a machine can actually fool a human that it itself has 'human style' (ie Turing Test) intelligence. The Turing Test (first proposed by Alan Turing in 1951)is fairly straightforward. A human subject carries on a conversation with another human and machine under blinded conditions. There are many ways to carry out the test in terms of study design. The idea is that after interviewing a human and a machine, the human subject cannot discriminate between the two, this is a point for AI. In Turing's time, the interviews could only be carried out by text or by a mediator. Today, human voice simulation is quite good, but perhaps not good enough not to give the test subject clues regarding voice inflections, tones, etc. In any case, the fundamental assumption was, and still is, that our notion of intelligence is subjective and is simply a quality that a being, who is assumed to have intelligence, can recognize in another.
If we were to encounter possible evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI), how would we evaluate it? How do we determine whether some feature or object is the product of an intelligence. (By the way, if you sense that I'm going off on some "intelligent design" track, I'm not. Just the opposite.) Essentially, the question we must ask is: What is the probability that this object or feature is the result of some "natural" process? Of course, determining probabilities requires some knowledge of the process and the distribution of outcomes. I argue that if we want to use the term "intelligence", it seems that it must be based on the assessment that the existence of an object or feature is of negligible probability in the absence of intelligence; GIVEN OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE PUTATIVE PROCESS. By being predicated this way, the term "intelligent design" does NOT apply to biological evolution because we have an adequate, if not complete, theory of the process by which biological designs arose. On the other hand, if we found an object on Mars that could not be reasonably explained by any known or reasonably understood natural process, we might be forced to recognize the existence of ETI, assuming no prior human presence.
So far, so good. But consider that humans (and any ETI) themselves are the product of natural processes. I don't think there can be any doubt about this if you're a scientist. Therefore, everything that is the product of human (or any other) intelligence is also a product of natural processes. It's convenient to maintain the distinction between natural and artificial, but this is a false dichotomy. I argue that what we call intelligence, particularly technologically advanced intelligence, is in fact a phase of cosmic evolution, just as the appearance of intact atoms, stars, heavy elements, carbon compounds, and life are phases of cosmic evolution. These ideas are not entirely my own. Authors such as Ray Kurzweil, Vernor Vinge, Paul Davies, James Gardner and others have thought along similar lines, although my view that "intelligence" is simply a relative, and not particularly useful term based on a false dichotomy seems to be new. These ideas are further explained in my own book which is mentioned in my biography for anyone who might be interested.
-
Why do you post an old theory in the new theory section of the forum
Most of us know about the works of Alan Turin a brilliant tragic scientist and computer pioneer,, who helped break the German Enigma machine and sectet code
-
Alan
Only the first paragraph deals with the the Turing Test as background. It's true that I'm dealing more with a definition (or actually the lack of one)than a theory, but this seemed the most appropriate place among the choices offered. Turing was dealing with the very specific question as to how to recognize AI. I start with his method as a basis for exploring the difficult nature of the concept of intelligence. It's clear that Turing didn't feel he could define intelligence and so developed the Turing test which is based on subjective recognition. In the second paragraph I try to show how our ideas regarding intelligence are really based on probabilities against certain expectations. Please read the whole post. It may be these ideas aren't entirely new. I name several authors in the third paragraph. I've done the research, but if you can you find sources regarding the specifics that I outlined, including the concept of the false dichotomy, please get back to me.
By the way, I'm aware of Turing's tragic life, his death by suicide and the way he was treated after saving his nation. The lives of great scientists are one of my major interests.
ss
Stevewillie
-
Why do you post an old theory in the new theory section of the forum
Pot and kettle spring to mind.
-
Any sign of intelligent life here? We humans self-identify with this quality of "intelligence". We build things and our technology would the "objective" evidence of intelligence for another technological species. But, presumably, this other species would have been intelligent enough to get to our neighborhood and observe us. We are still confined to the planet of our origin and we are messing it up big time. How intelligent is that? Even worse, we know we are in trouble, but can't seem to do anything about it. Cyanobacteria have been around for close to four billion years. If intelligence has something to do with adaptation and survival, cyanobacteria are collectively more intelligent than we are.
-
If ignorance is bliss, why do we seek the font of all knowledge?
-
If ignorance is bliss, why do we seek the font of all knowledge?
What is the font of all knowledge? If a technologically advanced ET observed us, it might regard us as interesting in the way we regard artifacts of neolithic cultures as interesting. What an advanced ET would judge us by is not what we think or what we think we know, but by what we build and the artifacts of our culture. These are things that can be observed. They are real things which another culture can study. We certainly shouldn't expect to have a linguistic connection with an ET (except possibly mathematics). Intelligence is a nebulous concept. At best,it is relative.
-
(By the way, if you sense that I'm going off on some "intelligent design" track, I'm not. Just the opposite.)
Just the opposite? Are you sure? Aren't you, in a roundabout way, arguing that our 'intelligence' is the very same intelligence behind our being;"Therefore, everything that is the product of human (or any other) intelligence is also a product of natural processes. It's convenient to maintain the distinction between natural and artificial, but this is a false dichotomy. I argue that what we call intelligence, particularly technologically advanced intelligence, is in fact a phase of cosmic evolution, just as the appearance of intact atoms, stars, heavy elements, carbon compounds, and life are phases of cosmic evolution."
Given that the most that we can currently even hope to discover is what the impact of the Big Bang was - that we still cannot hope to discover what occured to bring about the big bang - aren't you accepting that our intelligence is a manifestation of a greater intelligence? By un-defining the word are you not actually re-defining it?
This; "Intelligence is a nebulous concept. At best,it is relative." - is real grist to this discussion. If it is relative, then our "intelligence", our "consciousness" might be seen, then, as the "intelligence" or "consciousness" of the universe. We, then, define the universe in terms, quite rightly, relative to ourselves.
Scientifically speaking, we have evidence of our intelligence from this perspective, where we do not have evidence of "intelligent" life other than ourselves - we have only a theory, untested and unproven, that such exists.
-
angst
You are very perceptive. I wrote a book on all of this. Check my biography.
stevewillie
-
angst
You are very perceptive. I wrote a book on all of this. Check my biography.
stevewillie
Interesting. I may well seek it out.....
-
angst
You are very perceptive. I wrote a book on all of this. Check my biography.
stevewillie
Interesting. I may well seek it out.....
You won't find it in bookstores. It's on Amazon, including Kindle Books. Thanks.
Stevewillie
-
Hi I am not a scientist but I have my own views and this is one. Scientist seem to think that things (our world) "just happened" but they cant reproduce it even though they have tried cloning and even patend seeds after modifying them so they want reproduce and still Science has not created from scratch a new human or plant species. Dont you think that if we know all the answers then "just happened" is not good enough.
Surely there is more to it than that.
After all I am so glad that I just happened to be living on a planet that has air for me to breath and water to drink and plants and some animlas for me to eat.
Intelligent design may not involve that man we call god, but then we haven't met god so that is another question, maybe God "he" is something more like the DNA, something even more minute that we haven't even come close to discovering yet that lives in everything and is the entire reason why things are what they are.
Darwin fooie, Could you ever imagine a dog turning into a goober, a kangaroo turning into a possum, an ape turning into a human, a fly turning into yet another species. Even man has to artificially produce botanical plants and flowers, they dont just do it by themselves. Except when they have been genetically modified and the pollen then spread radically across the field to wipe out the original strains but wasn't GM designed to do that?
-
Darwin fooie, Could you ever imagine a dog turning into a goober, a kangaroo turning into a possum, an ape turning into a human, a fly turning into yet another species.
That isn't what Darwin said, in the first place. It's certainly not what is thought 150years later - things have moved on a bit since then, you know.
Perhaps you can't 'imagine' how evolution works. I find it even harder just to offset the whole process onto someone else's shoulders but can see why it may be more attractive an idea for people who can't handle big numbers or who can't analyse evidence objectively.
-
Darwin fooie, Could you ever imagine a dog turning into a goober, a kangaroo turning into a possum, an ape turning into a human, a fly turning into yet another species.
That isn't what Darwin said, in the first place. It's certainly not what is thought 150years later - things have moved on a bit since then, you know.
Perhaps you can't 'imagine' how evolution works. I find it even harder just to offset the whole process onto someone else's shoulders but can see why it may be more attractive an idea for people who can't handle big numbers or who can't analyse evidence objectively.
Spot on sophiecentaur. These are precisely the reasons for man creating gods. To explain that which was beyond comprehension.
-
I find it odd that mainly scientist speak of gods. It seems that a limited imagination is divided between evolving from one species to another or god.
didnt Darwin say we evolved from apes? Didn't Darwin say that the Kangaroo decided to climb a tree and became a possum? or was that someone else who said that? Or are we just speaking of adaptation within the same species? If we are speaking of adaptation, then we humans should be catagorised in the ape species or have I got it wrong.
With stems cells,..one scientist said 'they are engineered to grow into what ever form......' yet it isn't the scientist who engineers the stem cells to grow. the stem cell just knows what to do itself. Smart stem cells. Cant anyone think that there is something that we may not have discovered yet that is all mighty, probably not a person, something we have not humanised yet.
As most scientists cant get their head around "creation" without having to include a humanised god, then maybe we should take their own words and call it "engineered" (as per stem cell reproduction).
-
I actually should have said "INTELLIGENT" stem cells in the last post.
-
Hi all. This is indeed still a very interesting topic, no matter how often the subject is addressed. My question is: When we finally determine that an AI is indeed in our midst, then what? Would it not be expedient and beneficial to already have ethics in place so that the AI is treated with autonomy and humanity? I would enjoy hearing responses, as I am sure there are many opinions out there. [???]
-
echochartruse
I find it odd that mainly scientist speak of gods. It seems that a limited imagination is divided between evolving from one species to another or god.
Evolution and a god aren't, per se, mutually exclusive.
God existing and God NOT existing are, however, mutually exclusive situations. If, as I believe, god does not exist then evolution (as a general process) must be the explanation. I see nothing 'limited' about that view.
Your view will be 'limited' if your idea of evolution is as you state it. Read a bit of Darwin himself (or, preferably, something that has been written less than 150 years ago) and you will see that he didn't (and modern evolution theory doesn't) put it in the way that you have. If you are going to reject a theory then you should at least find out what you are rejecting.
-
Sorry to all the scientific minded people out there I dont mean to offend just have my own opinion.
If 150yrs after Darwin his theory has changed then why do we refer to evolution as Darwinism still? [???]
My interpretation of evolution is that all life forms came from one single life form.
Now you are saying this theory has changed! [:o] I am behind the times.
On the other hand maybe there is a link between one species turning into another and intelligent design. After all those 'intelligent engineered stem cells' seem to know exactly what they want to become as if they have a mind of their own. Oh and God, yea he may be the third element but i doubt anything to be just black or white, one or the other, creation or god, that seems to be very limited in imagination. I dont know if you are talking about Jesus, his father or another interpretation of what some think God is.
I think if you take out the human factor of GOD then you can understand what I am trying to say.
Just think of god as something that is in every living thing. Scientifically thinking that is.
"intelligent design" just might be correct when stem cells and something not yet discovered is added.
"intelligent engineered stem cells" - that was the statement I heard one scientist describe them as - SO come on,
Why not intelligent design [?]
-
I forgot to mention that I had read a little about Darwin. I believe he married into the Wedgewood family and that family had a great influence both politically and socially at that time.
-
I forgot to mention that I had read a little about Darwin. I believe he married into the Wedgewood family and that family had a great influence both politically and socially at that time.
I fail to see how that is relevant.
Darwinism is so called for the same reason Newtonian physics is so called. It's named after the person who first researched it, or first published it at least. Every field of science is being constantly updated - it's one of the beauties of science.
-
Hi all. This is indeed still a very interesting topic, no matter how often the subject is addressed. My question is: When we finally determine that an AI is indeed in our midst, then what? Would it not be expedient and beneficial to already have ethics in place so that the AI is treated with autonomy and humanity? I would enjoy hearing responses, as I am sure there are many opinions out there. [???]
Now this is an interesting point. I'm not even sure we have a good enough definition of AI just yet to handle the ethical issues around it. I think that some systems have passed the Turing test, but there's still nothing we could truly call AI right now. Will we be prepared? I don't know, but it will be interesting finding out!
-
I forgot to mention that I had read a little about Darwin. I believe he married into the Wedgewood family and that family had a great influence both politically and socially at that time.
I fail to see how that is relevant.
Then you dont think politics can influence science? or promote one persons theory ove another?..
How society can influence the way we think?...
If people are talking about ID then that is all that matters, it really doesn't matter if some science hasn't caught up with the idea.
ID may be just another link to discovering something else, who knows.
-
didnt Darwin say we evolved from apes? Didn't Darwin say that the Kangaroo decided to climb a tree and became a possum? or was that someone else who said that? Or are we just speaking of adaptation within the same species? If we are speaking of adaptation, then we humans should be catagorised in the ape species or have I got it wrong.
No Darwin didn't said that, he said that modern day apes and humans have a common ancestor, just as all marsupials have a common ancestor. Going back in time all living beings including plants have a common ancestor. Humans and great apes belong to the family Hominidae, so basically we're cousins. I've never felt anything wrong with that, in fact when I watch them in the zoo or watch documentaries I feel the connection.
A long long time ago evolution started. What you apparently fail to grasp is that evolution is both chance and directional. Mutations happen by chance, selection selects for traits that are useful for survival or the species. There is no need to introduce an intelligent designer.
On the other hand maybe there is a link between one species turning into another and intelligent design. After all those 'intelligent engineered stem cells' seem to know exactly what they want to become as if they have a mind of their own. Oh and God, yea he may be the third element but i doubt anything to be just black or white, one or the other, creation or god, that seems to be very limited in imagination. I dont know if you are talking about Jesus, his father or another interpretation of what some think God is.
With an intelligent designer you introduce another element, one that can't be scientifically tested. Scientists often use expressions that seem to infer a designer, which has become very dangerous, because ID proponents jump to conclusions, just like you did.
ID limits scienctific imagination, as soon as there is something unexplainable, creationism tells us "<insert deity of choice here> did it", so why do more research.
-
So let me get this right we all came from one species and that just happened due to the environment that one species was in at the time that caused it to develop differently from the next. Do I have it right? Is that what the theory of evolution is based on?
Much like "intelligent Stems cells"
So could you extend the "Theory of Evolution" here please to explain why stem cells develop differently depending on the environment.
I chose intelligent stem cells as we can actually see the process in our own time and we dont have to wait millions of yrs.
It just helps me understand the other theory.
-
So let me get this right we all came from one species and that just happened due to the environment that one species was in at the time that caused it to develop differently from the next. Do I have it right? Is that what the theory of evolution is based on?
Basically, yes.
- No individual in a population is exactly the same as the other (OK, identical twins are an exeption). This is called variation. Those differences are caused by mutations in the genom. And of course by mixing up the genes during sexual reproduction.
- A mutation can have 3 results:
Bad - animal/plant dies
Neutral - nothing happens, just a variant
Good - animal/plant is better at something
(I'm simplifying here, some can be both good and bad.) - Only the neutral and good mutations get passed on to the next generation. The good ones even more, because the chances are better for the animal or plant to survive. This is called natural selection.
Now imagine that a group of animals get isolated, i.e. on an island. This group has specific mixture of variantions, different from the main population in the main land. Over time different traits will get favoured by selection, since the starting point was different too, the results will be different as well. Given enough time those 2 groups will be so different from each other that they cant't interbreed anymore. At that point we have 2 species.
Much like "intelligent Stems cells"
So could you extend the "Theory of Evolution" here please to explain why stem cells develop differently depending on the environment.
I chose intelligent stem cells as we can actually see the process in our own time and we dont have to wait millions of yrs.
It just helps me understand the other theory.
Stem cells are not intelligent. They have their DNA, which reacts to the environment. Different genes get switched on by different environments. Embryonic stem cells are very special, because they still can become every type of cell needed in a body, they are called totipotent. A nerv cell can only become another nerv cell during mitosis.
All this has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution deals with the change over time in whole groups of animals. Stem cells are parts of a body.
-
Stem cells are not intelligent. They have their DNA, which reacts to the environment. Different genes get switched on by different environments. Embryonic stem cells are very special, because they still can become every type of cell needed in a body, they are called totipotent. A nerv cell can only become another nerv cell during mitosis.
All this has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution deals with the change over time in whole groups of animals. Stem cells are parts of a body.
"mesenchymal stem cells were extracted from the bone marrow of sheep. “These are cells which can differentiate into bone, cartilage, tendons or ligaments”, Nick explains."
© University of Liverpool 2003
Research Intelligence is a quarterly newsletter, published by the University of Liverpool. It is produced by Dr Kerron Harvey. If you would like to know more about the research expertise, the equipment or the products/processes featured in this issue, please contact Dr Harvey at:
Business Gateway, The University of Liverpool,
The Foresight Building, 3 Brownlow Street, Liverpool L69 3GL.
tel: +44 (0)151 794 8343
fax: +44 (0)151 794 8344
e-mail: respub@liv.ac.uk
maybe here lies the begining of understanding "Intelligent Design" or what I would like to call "Intelligent Adaptation" Only because the noun Design causes a mind blockage for some thinking that there has to be a designer, a creator. The word adaptation takes away the neeed to find a proper noun to associate with the word and allows us to move on.
“These are cells which can differentiate into bone,
to differentiate must include some sort of intelligents whether it is derived from DNA or something not yet discovered. Something that lives in every living thing.
-
Why are you so hung up about this word 'Intelligence'? Stem cells react in a particular way according to circumstances. So do we. One could say that this requires what we call intelligence. What does that signify?
You have used these stem cells to make assumptions and as a lever to augment your argument about some superior influence. There is nothing more significant about them than about any other organism or part of an organism.
You want everyone to use the word intelligence (and the word design, too) to describe a process that actually doesn't need those two words. Why? Will it prove some sort of point for you?
The word 'design', in particular, has strong implication of a 'purpose'. That's just what evolutionary theory is not about.
Also, you quote the names of well qualified workers in their field but not any specific statements explicitly in favour of your argument. That is quite spurious and doesn't help your argument at all.
-
Why are you so hung up about this word 'Intelligence'?
we are discussing Another view of "intelligence"
-
But the conversation goes nowhere.
Suddenly, stem cells are big thing and are, somehow, endowed with magical properties. They are 'designing' us.
The only way you can use the word design, I contend, is in a process involving conscious planning. Intelligence in a continuum of performance, if you like, but if you want to define it in some other way then we need another word for what we describe as intelligence now. The same goes for 'design'.
Are you saying there is some external influence or not?
-
I'm not saying there is a god designer, a human planner, BUT no one can not say that stem cells anticipate what is expected from them, they do the work then they stop. That Stephen Francis Badylak, D.V.M., Ph.D., M.D. University of Pittsburgh said 'Intelligent stem cells". Not saying they are god or a designer just intelligent.
Therefore if we take out the word "design" from Intelligent design some of us may be able to think beyond the human intervention of the noun "design".
My personal view is that we should title it "Intelligent Adaptation" which brakes the limited thought that seems to be blocking peoples thoughts.
Can you answer who designed the stem cell to know exactly what to do then stop after it has done it?
Maybe it has something to do with "INTELLEGENT ADAPTATION". Something that all stem cells are capable of doing given the right environment. Without direction on how to do it, they know when to stop doing it without help from any human or god like designer.
So as you suggested The only way you can use the word design, I contend, is in a process involving conscious planning.
lets drop that word, design'cause we don't know if stem cells have a conscience.
Yet they have been describeed as intelligent.
I suggest "Intelligent adaption".
I'm sure if we do this it will unblock peoples thoughts and maybe just maybe new and exciting things can begin to be descovered.
-
Stem cells are not intelligent. They have their DNA, which reacts to the environment. Different genes get switched on by different environments. Embryonic stem cells are very special, because they still can become every type of cell needed in a body, they are called totipotent. A nerv cell can only become another nerv cell during mitosis.
All this has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution deals with the change over time in whole groups of animals. Stem cells are parts of a body.
I have read about pig stem cells being used in human organs and I believe that the pig DNA is absorbed and can not be found in the human afterwards. Is that correct?
If it is correct than stem cells are being changed depending on their environment also.
Does this have anything to do with evolution?
If what you said previously in your last post is correct than evolution has no purpose. and if it did no one would have cancer or arthritis, as our bodies would have evolved to illuminate these and other deceases we have no use for.
What is the purpose of evolution? when somethings never change and is not beneficial to their survival.
Embryonic stem cells are very special, because they still can become every type of cell needed in a body, they are called totipotent.
intelligent adaptation.
-
Can you answer who designed the stem cell to know exactly what to do then stop after it has done it?
Maybe it has something to do with "INTELLEGENT ADAPTATION". Something that all stem cells are capable of doing given the right environment. Without direction on how to do it, they know when to stop doing it without help from any human or god like designer.
Chemical cues in the local environment will lead to certain genes being switched on/off. While a gene is being expressed, it will be making a product that leads to a change inside/outside the cell. There will be chemical feedback mechanisms that will stop the gene from being expressed. Again, stem cells, as with all of our cells, can be considered to be little biological machines.
There's no need for intelligence anywhere here, and stem cells are not intelligent.
Intelligent adaptation seems to be an excuse to wedge the word intelligent into what we see around us. How about just adaptation? Why do you feel the need for there to be intelligence involved somewhere?
-
echo
Can you answer who designed the stem cell to know exactly what to do then stop after it has done it?
They were produced by you and me and other animals. Are you putting the cart before the horse, here?
I don't understand where you want to take all this. Do you want stem cells to be the new God? Do you want them to surplant the 'selfish gene? They are, surely, just another specialised cell type. In their case, the speciality is that they can take on the characteristics of other cells. What's so magical about that? Every cell contains the information to do that but it, clearly, would not be advantageous for all cells to do so. It happens to be an advantage for stem cells to exist - so they do.
How is that any more or less 'intelligent' than any other cell doing what it does when in its right place.
Is this some sort of religion with you? What are you actually trying to open all our eyes to? Will you only be happy when we all agree to use the word "intelligent" to describe this small sub set of life?
They are just a part of the system!
I have tried to find where Badylak says what you claim he has said. I can't. You are quoting him selectively, I think, and attempting to get on his bandwagon without understanding what his real message is.
Give us a link to the full version of the statement you claim he has made to support your argument.
People keep quoting Einstein and Darwin to 'prove' all sorts of loopy ideas. They would turn in their graves if they knew. Poor old Dr. Badylak is getting the same treatment, now.
-
There's no need for intelligence anywhere here, and stem cells are not intelligent.
Intelligent adaptation seems to be an excuse to wedge the word intelligent into what we see around us. How about just adaptation? Why do you feel the need for there to be intelligence involved somewhere?
I am sorry to say, freedom of inquiry in science is being suppressed. Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator. They cannot even mention the possibility that—as Newton or Galileo believed—these laws were created by God or a higher being. They could get fired, lose tenure, have their grants cut off. This can happen. It has happened.
Ben Stein, author, actor, film-maker
EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed
"stem cells because they have the information carried by DNA can differentiate the requirement to become a blood vessel, a nerve, a muscle cell or whatever............."
We have no understanding of this.
"stem cells differentiate" ........ but some refuse to accept that this is some sort of planning which requires some sort of intelligents.
But still no one can deny the process is very "intelligent" - so intelligent, human kind has not discovered how the DNA carries and releases the information to the stem cells to become whatever it is required to become.
No I don't want to call it God either.
All I am saying is if we cant find DNA in reptiles that carry information for wings (birds) then why do some think that a bird evolved from a reptile?
lets just say we still don't understand and as some have already said we may never know.
into what we see around us.
Maybe we should just call it "Nature" and be happy with that.
"Nature has created an incredibly elegant and simple way of creating variability, and maintaining it at a steady level, enabling cells to respond to changes in their environment in a systematic, controlled way," adds Chang, first author on the paper.
Children's Hospital Boston
http://www.childrenshospital.org/newsroom/Site1339/mainpageS1339P1sublevel427.html
Nature sounds good to me and it doesn't hold back thoughts and experiments like the word "evolution" does.
-
They were produced by you and me and other animals. Are you putting the cart before the horse, here?
Are you saying I created them?
or are you talking about "the chicken before the egg?"
I don't understand where you want to take all this. Do you want stem cells to be the new God?
You may need a god to explain things you can not comprehend. But what is "GOD"
This is where mind blocks begin to happen, please keep your god out of this.
Do you want them to surplant the 'selfish gene? They are, surely, just another specialised cell type. In their case, the speciality is that they can take on the characteristics of other cells. What's so magical about that? Every cell contains the information to do that but it, clearly, would not be advantageous for all cells to do so.
so some genes are destined (designed) for greater things..... clever!
It happens to be an advantage for stem cells to exist - so they do.
yep, I know evolution just happened too!
How is that any more or less 'intelligent' than any other cell doing what it does when in its right place.
This is the mind block I am talking about. "I've been told it does so just lets accept it".........
Hey,... I'm not saying that stem cells are the most intelligent thing on earth, I'm not saying that religion has anything to do with intelligents. I'm not even saying intelligents is man made or associated with religion or man at all, I'm saying that we all hold the key to life, like those little cells that knows what to do when they are in the right place and that is what we need to understand, the reason why they do it, where does the info that the DNA carries comes from? It could not be random, surely your scientific mind can not accept that! and if it doesn't "just happen" for no reason - or "just happen" for a reason, you must ask why, how, and a whole lot more questions.
Obviously humans are complex as most things naturally occuring on earth and in our universe. We may never understand and if we ever do it may be the end of everything.
Take out the human intelligents, the god intelligents, maybe there is information intelligents we have not decoded yet. surely you are not just giving in and accepting "it Just happened" "Its in the right place so it KNOWS what to do"
Surely there is intelligents that us humans can not comprehend, something maybe so simple yet so great it would overwhelm us to know.
Is this some sort of religion with you? What are you actually trying to open all our eyes to? Will you only be happy when we all agree to use the word "intelligent" to describe this small sub set of life?
They are just a part of the system!
What system? Is it an intelligent system or just random?
I have tried to find where Badylak says what you claim he has said. I can't. You are quoting him selectively, I think, and attempting to get on his bandwagon without understanding what his real message is.
Give us a link to the full version of the statement you claim he has made to support your argument.
it was on the net and now it has been edited....... Also on Australian television sunday evening last, a segment on stem cell research, The scientist there described them as "Intelligent stem cells" I shall try to find that for you.
People keep quoting Einstein and Darwin to 'prove' all sorts of loopy ideas. They would turn in their graves if they knew. Poor old Dr. Badylak is getting the same treatment, now.
Really, I didn't think anyone bothered to quote Darwin any longer.
-
Really, I didn't think anyone bothered to quote Darwin any longer.
Do you ever read the posts on this forum?
Apart from your, apparent, personal belief that there must be some purpose to life, you haven't introduced anything new, at all. You seem to be offended by a 'mind block' which you haven't defined. Science education and literature have a fairly consistent view about the way the system works. If you don't want people to accept what they have been told, how can you expect me / us to accept what you are just telling us. You have quoted no evidence at all - just a report of one word ("intelligent"), used by a competent academic but in what context and with what weight behind it? Was it a headline statement or a metaphor, used in an attempt to make an idea understandable?
You are expecting us to take on what you are saying, which is just based on your particular gut reaction. Is that scientific?
"It can not be random" and "Surely your scientific mind cannot etc." are not scientific statements - they are just appeals to emotion which do not constitute any sort of argument.
You clearly believe strongly in something but what it is and why I should also believe in it are beyond me.
-
Science assumes that life evolved without the help of a designer, and then sets about describing how this might happen. If it fails to find an adequate description, then the assumption that life evolved without the help of a designer is not disproved.
looking for a solution. Because intelligent design is not constrained by the naturalistic axiom, the failure of science to find a plausible solution disproves the initial assumption that life evolved by purely naturalistic means. The time that science has to find a solution is key here. Science has had roughly 150 years (since Darwin) and 50+ years since Miller to find a solution to the mystery of life's origin. Every year that passes with no solution strengthens the design inference.
http://www.theory-of-evolution.net/chap18/alternatives-to-intelligent-design.php
If we give up asking questions, we may never know. One should not just accept things without thinking or asking questions, emotional axiom can contribute to finding solutions.
-
If the Universe needed a designer, then the designer also needed a designer and so on and so on. You have just offset the question, which I have mentioned before many times.
Introducing a designer into the equation solves absolutely nothing - it just adds complication. That is not the scientific way.
-
"stem cells differentiate" ........ but some refuse to accept that this is some sort of planning which requires some sort of intelligents.
I share sophiecentaurs confusion as to what exactly you are banging on about stem cells for? They possess all of the information neccessary to become whatever cell they need to from the start, and there are only a finite amount of possible cell types. The cell detects what kind of tissue it is in, then switches on the genes that make it grow into the same kind of tissue. It doesn't design itself, it already has the plans. That's what DNA is, have you heard of it? So of course we refuse to believe that the cell designs itself. If it did, each cell should have different DNA, but nope, they're all the same.
All I am saying is if we cant find DNA in reptiles that carry information for wings (birds) then why do some think that a bird evolved from a reptile?
If a bird evolved from a reptile then why on earth should a reptile have the genes for wings? That's like asking why a house without a chimney doesn't have a blueprint for a chimney somewhere inside it. Why should it?
"the reason why they do it"
- Why does there have to be a reason?
"where does the info that the DNA carries comes from?"
- From evolution.
"It could not be random"
- It isn't. Only the information that helps the species survive is selected for, this information is kept, etc. Have you even properly learned of evolution before jumping into this?
"and if it doesn't "just happen" for no reason - or "just happen" for a reason, you must ask why, how, and a whole lot more questions."
- Like what? Please elaborate.
Science assumes that life evolved without the help of a designer, and then sets about describing how this might happen. If it fails to find an adequate description, then the assumption that life evolved without the help of a designer is not disproved.
looking for a solution. Because intelligent design is not constrained by the naturalistic axiom, the failure of science to find a plausible solution disproves the initial assumption that life evolved by purely naturalistic means. The time that science has to find a solution is key here. Science has had roughly 150 years (since Darwin) and 50+ years since Miller to find a solution to the mystery of life's origin. Every year that passes with no solution strengthens the design inference.
http://www.theory-of-evolution.net/chap18/alternatives-to-intelligent-design.php
If we give up asking questions, we may never know. One should not just accept things without thinking or asking questions, emotional axiom can contribute to finding solutions.
Explain why science has a time limit please? Just because we do not currently have an adequate explanation for a phenomenon does not mean that it is forever unexplainable, or that it therefore defies the laws of nature or requires a paranormal explanation.
However, search in youtube for "abiogenesis", i believe cdk007 has an excellent video on it, which I do find an adequate explanation. Many orders of magnitude more adequate than postulating a designer anyway.
-
This forum is "ANOTHER VIEW ON INTELLIGENTS"
Some confuse it with "EVOLUTION"
"where does the info that the DNA carries comes from?" - From evolution.
then are you saying evolution is intelligent? That evolution distributes information to where it is required that it tells cells to change to do something based on the environment and tells the cells when to stop doing it?
All I am saying is if we cant find DNA in reptiles that carry information for wings (birds) then why do some think that a bird evolved from a reptile?
...If a bird evolved from a reptile then why on earth should a reptile have the genes for wings?
That's like asking why a house without a chimney doesn't have a blueprint for a chimney somewhere inside it. Why should it?
if there is no blue print for the chimney it would not exist. (Council wouldn't allow it at least until it had that information)
If evolution forgot to include information in the DNA for wings where did that reptile get that information from so it could become a bird..........?
"the reason why they do it" - Why does there have to be a reason?
And that is exactly what I am talking about We should be asking questions, not just following blindly, relying on stuff 100's of yrs old to justify everything in existence that I'm told is not all correct anyway. Has scientists given up the ability to think and reason for themselves.
''the Darwinian theory has become an all-purpose obstacle to thought rather than an enabler of scientific advance'.
For that matter, science cannot even disprove the idea of intelligent design. Science is, and only is, an explanation that best fits the data we currently have.''
intelligent design is a framework of logical thinking based on the observable axiom that can be used to analyze scientific data.
So lets get off our butts and find more explanations - lets start thinking, asking questions with an open mind.
Hay what about this.... what if there is such a tiny little atom or neutron or something even smaller than anything yet discovered that lives in everything that has the intelligence to control evolution, DNA and cells, to change the world and everything in it all on its own, something we have not yet found in the laboratory.
Just think when we do find it we can make evolution perfect, we can all have longevity, no more cancers, etc, etc.
get rid of all the diseases that have plagued the earth forever, wow sounds great but not impossible. Well to an open minded person anyway.
It would have to be the most unsurpassed "intelligent" whatever on earth, maybe the universe and more. anyway that is my view on intelligence"
-
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi29.tinypic.com%2Fmj3h4k.jpg&hash=59234bb04acbe4c8d38a13a44125ea1b)
I'll put more effort into this post later, it's going to take a bit of effort explaining evolution from scratch, as it is made apparent you have no understanding of it.
-
My submission was not about evolution, it was only my view on intelligents.....
-
Your submission was about how we got here. Your explanation rejects evolution and you appear not to understand what it involves. You have attempted to replace it by using a word "intelligence", as if that explains anything. The examples you have quoted are meaningless - stem cells are no more significant than any other cells - you would see that if you understood more about the mechanism of evolution.
You complain that we are not opening our minds and that we believe what we are told, without question. What do you have to offer, as an alternative, which is presented in anything like as coherent a way?
Why can't you suggest where this "intelligence" of yours could have come from and what evidence there is for it? You haven't actually expressed a view, nor have you defined what you mean by the term. You have just posed some vague questions which demonstrate the age old need of humans to have some sort of a God.