Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

page: 53
18
<< 50  51  52   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 

Some other things I hope you could clarify:


Originally posted by Barcs
My point was that intelligent guidance does not seem likely because of the great time involved in the evolution of life.

What does time have do with proving or disproving intelligence or lack there of in anything?


Intelligent guidance of evolution make no sense AT ALL because 99.99% of all species to ever exist have gone extinct. That doesn't sound intelligent to me at all .... Evolution has ups and downs. Some creatures go extinct because of bad random mutations.

Are you suggesting that evolution is the cause for extinctions? Most mass extinction level events are external to evolution so I'm not sure what you mean when you say this. Do you mean that because evolution doesn't act quick enough to adapt species to sudden changes in environments this should be indicative for lack of intelligence some how?
Life still finds ways to keep going, evolving and adapting. No extinction event has ever succeeded in completely eradicating life. In fact there's evidence that shows what may have been an extinction event in some cases, such as an asteroid impact, created a surge of new species by up to four fold in those instances. The fact that 99% of all species have disappeared doesn't hold any relevance if we're talking about evolution of life for life's sake.


Please explain the intelligence behind that. How does this intervention work? Are you saying that every time any creature is born a magical force goes into their genetics and alters exact DNA sequences for an exact purpose?

Why does it have to be a magical force? Couldn't we reduce it down to simple information transfer? The subject of semiotics was brought up earlier in this thread but dismissed for some reason. I bring it up here as it relates to biosemiotics. Couldn't we explore it from that perspective?


Sorry, but intelligence behind evolution is a pure guess and bears no relevance to reality.

I find it ironic that you've been arguing against being able to prove consciousness on a broader scale yet on numerous occasions you've attempted to drill your points home using the above bolded phrase. What reality are you referring to?
The intersubjective one that involves a collection of consciousnesses sharing consensus on what it is we're all perceiving and experiencing?


The fact that so many creatures have gone extinct, shows there is likely no intelligent at all behind it. The fact that our higher intelligence could evolve within a short period (7 million years), shows that if there is any intelligence behind evolution they have the intellect of a 5 year old.

Again, I don't understand the relevance of what you're asserting when you use time values or extinction as a way to disprove intelligence. Would you mind clarifying?

Extinction is not by evolution's doing. Evolution is actually responsible for the resurgence of life after such events, is it not?
edit on 17-7-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Cars have absolutely nothing to do with species going extinct. It's a complete non sequitar to my argument. Cars took 3 billion years to emerge because HUMANS took 3 billion years to emerge and humans created them. If you consider them all part of the same process, then what exactly are you arguing with me about? Why did you bring up the car? We're talking about intelligent guidance of evolution are we not?


You said evolution is not that intelligent because a large percentage of species are extinct. I brought up cars (something you would consider an intelligent design) to express that a large percentage of types of cars (since the first one)(in quality and quantity) are now 'extinct'.

If I consider it all apart of the same process, and you consider humans building cars intelligent design, then I consider nature building humans intelligent design.




Furthermore the car is almost the complete opposite of evolution. It was designed by humans for specific purposes and has improved from model to model, INTENTIONALLY. There are no ups and downs. Only ups. There was no time during the hundred years we've had automobiles, that they suddenly stopped improving or regressed back to the previous decade's technology. This happens all the time with evolution, with big environmental changes. If an intelligent force was guiding evolution why wouldn't they plan ahead for such events, instead of just letting thousands of species go extinct. Why guide genetic mutations to make millions of different species if the goal is to create intelligent life? Why not alter the necessary DNA to speed up the process.
Cars have not been around long enough to see a major environmental catastrophe that would alter their rate and quality of production. Also there are many varieties of cars, some better quality then others, why arent all the cars of the same best quality, why did other species of cars suddenly stop improving? Evolution itself is the planning ahead, the fact the the universe is established as it is, and there is lots of energy and biology, and time must go forth, is insurance that interesting things will happen. Maybe its an experiment, maybe a universe of this kind, and biology of this kind has never existed before and so in this universe all the probabilities are tested, and on earth alone, we see many of the potential arrangements of atoms over time. Alter the necessary DNA, thats what evolution is doing, right now every specie that exists can actually live and survive over time because of the alterations of its ancestral alterations of dna.




On a related note, my neighbor's dog is getting old and starting to walk with a limp.


"The thoughts of an inventor or urges to go into a line of work or field of invention can be seen at times to be random."

Its not my fault you dont understand my arguements, doesnt mean they dont make sense. I was claiming that even processes of intelligent design require random attempts, trial and error, in the same way evolution is a process of trial and error, throw a bunch of ideas at the wall and see what sticks.




No. They are products of human intelligence. You are equivocating intelligence and consciousness, 2 very different things. That seems to be your primary method of debating. You compare things that aren't related and use vague terminology to insinuate that they are the same. You've done it with biological evolution and layman's evolution. You've done it with biological life and human technology. And now you've done it with consciousness and intelligence. I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but I have to call you out when I see such a poor regard for logical arguments.


Well I remember asking a lot of sincere questions in those replies and instead of answering them you are just discussing the most meaningless parts of my reply. I wrote a lot asking you the difference between intelligence and consciousness, and stating my own opinions of it. 2 very different things are they? So if intelligence does not require consciousness, nature can be intelligent, and design intelligently?

And I know it may be difficult for you, but can you try your best to let me know when you think the moment you became intelligence manifested was? Trying to get to the bottom of what intelligence is and what is required, would be interesting to hear when you believe you first became an intelligence, what you were a moment prior, and what allowed and caused you to make the transition?
edit on 17-7-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Hi Barcs,
Would you mind clarifying your stance on intelligence? I ask because on at least a few occasions in your arguments you have proclaimed, to the point of demanding, that intelligence requires a brain, but then you seemingly waffled with your response to ImaFungi:

"Maybe not. There could be other ways to manifest the same type of neural network as the brain, without a biological brain."

So I'm curious - Does it or doesn't it require a brain in your view?


I would say yes. It does require a brain or similar system capable of thinking and processing information. What I was getting at with my response to Fungi, was that it may be possible to have brain-like function if an entity had a similar structure to a brain's neural network, for example a synthetic or electronic "brain" (AI or non bio entity). But yes, something has to be there to think. Intelligence can't just exist by itself.



I also have to bring up the case for plant intelligence. By the very meaning and definition of intelligence, plants meet the criteria and then some. Yet they have no brain or neural networks to speak of.
Here are some interesting things plants do and you can tell me if any of these don't meet the requirement for intelligence in your view:
*Ability to communicate (with other plants and animals)
*Ability to protect against predators and warn other plants. Can summon other animals to ward off pests.
*Ability to recognize next of kin or stranger, and react accordingly, typically favoring kin
*As it relates to above point- capable of refined recognition of self and non-self, and are territorial in behavior.
*Ability to determine precisely how much food reserves will be needed to get through the night- which some scientists have likened to performing of math to do so
*Ability to store "memories" and "learn" from positive or negative experiences to adjust for future behavior
*Ability to sense magnetic fields, gravity and sunlight et al and being able to react accordingly
*They sleep
*As young budding flowers they've even been observed to "play" in a sense (scientists have no other way to describe it)


Most of what you listed are instincts. Plants are alive and survival is the prime factor in most of their existence. They have those abilities because they are exactly what helped them survive numerous environmental changes and extinction level events over the years. Plants do not think. They do. They do not experience pain, emotions, or any of the 5 senses. Don't mistake defense mechanisms against all other creatures as being intelligent and recognizing friend or foe. I'd be interested in seeing the studies that show the ability to store memories and learn. It makes sense that they sense things like sunlight giving them energy and the proper amount to consume. It's not because they thought it out and weighed the options. It's because the plants that didn't, went extinct.

The big thing that defines intelligence is the ability to think, and plants do not have this. Adapting to and recognizing their environment is not the same as making decisions and learning from them as life goes on, They do not technically learn and apply skills. Saying they are as sophisticated as animals is an exaggeration. You are right that plants and animals do share a common ancestor, so it's not all that surprising that some plants possess very basic version of similar traits. Intelligence is not one of them, however.

Now don't get me wrong, one could argue that plants might be conscious, but intelligent doesn't fit the bill. I personally believe that consciousness/awareness is a property of life (possibly even all energy/matter). You don't have to think to exist. It sure is nice that we can, however.


Are you suggesting that evolution is the cause for extinctions? Most mass extinction level events are external to evolution so I'm not sure what you mean when you say this. Do you mean that because evolution doesn't act quick enough to adapt species to sudden changes in environments this should be indicative for lack of intelligence some how?
If you are claiming that evolution is intelligent then it should learn and apply skills. If this is the case it will learn from past designs and should primarily use all the beneficial traits in the majority of modern species. This is not the case, however. It's mixed and matched. Many species do go extinct because of bad mutations. It's not always about mass extinctions.


I find it ironic that you've been arguing against being able to prove consciousness on a broader scale yet on numerous occasions you've attempted to drill your points home using the above bolded phrase. What reality are you referring to?

Objective provable reality is what I mean by reality.


Again, I don't understand the relevance of what you're asserting when you use time values or extinction as a way to disprove intelligence. Would you mind clarifying?


I've already said it. Evolution has never headed in a clear direction of improvement as would seem to be required of any "intelligence". It heads in multiple directions, some improve, some do not. Some of it is completely random. It's funny that Fungi mentioned cars because it's about to prove my point. When you study the development of cars, you see a very consistent improvement over time. Features are specifically added to make a better, more convenient product. It is a clear product of intelligence, knowledge, and innovation that has been built upon for a century. Aside from antique collectors, you don't have 1940s styles cars on the road today, competing with the rest. They do not still manufacture old outdated models with old technology. THIS is what you see in a product of intelligence. You don't have things randomly changing from generation to generation. You don't have them getting better, then worse, then better, then worse, then better. In fact, intelligent creation is pretty much the exact opposite of how evolution works.
edit on 17-7-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Another question I just thought of. Is there any explanation as to why it is possible for intelligence to exist, considering the perceived beginning of the universe? The universe at its earliest or before its earliest is thought to just be one form of energy (what ever that means, you would say there was no matter, does that mean this is non material energy? I actually dont know of a case in which energy exists apart from matter...but anyway), Retracing the steps of time and space and material we can get clues into how these parts pieced together to create life and intelligence, but is there any rational explanation as to why, in infinite time inanimate 'energy' of one primal variety can become intelligent? Why would and should this ever be able to happen, this on and ever going expansive accidental miracle of genius and sophistication is greater then any mans creation thus far (imo).



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Very true in fact look at how many versions of hominids didnt make it. Were continually finding human like species that were not able to compete with homo sapiens. Something about us proved superior to the other species and they went extinct my favorite is the hobbits (florinesis) its like something out of tolken.


It appears nature tried big the neanderthals and small the hobbits the small it appears neither were up to the challenge.
edit on 7/18/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   
My point is that if thinking must be evident to designate intelligence then we should consider what thinking actually is. Can't we look at thinking as either or a combo of all- the acquisition of; the processing of, or dissemination of information.?
edit on 18-7-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Originally posted by Barcs
I would say yes. It does require a brain or similar system capable of thinking and processing information. But yes, something has to be there to think. Intelligence can't just exist by itself.

So either a brain, or, a system capable of processing information similar to how a brain does. Then technically a brain is not required. Plants are almost brain-like themselves in the way they process information using the entirety of its structure. The root systems operate like neurons connecting themselves with neighboring root systems to transfer information.

Check these out- The colorful images are of the internet network, the root systems for plants is the image with them lined up side by side, and the other two of neural dendrites.

There seems to be a pattern for structures used in the transferring and processing of information. There also seems to be a connection with the manner in which information is sent - mainly by light and/or electricity.

Now take a look at the universe (2 on top) vs brain cell (2 on bottom):


And of electricity:

The similarities between all of these structures and forms are too obvious to ignore, and shouldn't be pushed aside as some coincidence. And not just because they share the same look, but also in what they are used for. The structure of our universe is a network of galaxy clusters linked together by so-called dark energy. We don't know yet if the universe does anything, but perhaps the clues lie within structures of similar forms found on our planet, and what they are used for- information transfer and processing. Just coincidence?


Plants do not think. They do not experience pain, emotions, or any of the 5 senses.

Plants can see, smell, feel, and remember.

And possibly hear?


The big thing that defines intelligence is the ability to think, and plants do not have this. Adapting to and recognizing their environment is not the same as making decisions and learning from them as life goes on, They do not technically learn and apply skills.

Being able to think is not the only thing that defines intelligence though. Problem solving can be considered to be done by thinking yet this is exactly what plants do, constantly. And yes, they do learn from previous positive or negative experiences which are stored as memories to direct future behaviors.


Saying they are as sophisticated as animals is an exaggeration.

I guess you'll just have to take it up with Darwin then.


If you are claiming that evolution is intelligent then it should learn and apply skills. If this is the case it will learn from past designs and should primarily use all the beneficial traits in the majority of modern species. This is not the case, however. It's mixed and matched. Many species do go extinct because of bad mutations. It's not always about mass extinctions.

Hmm- Why couldn't I argue for learning if once a species goes extinct we never see it again? Evolution is the transformation of species into more capable forms of itself or into a new species all together. Out with the old in with the new you could say. A lot of how evolution works is through trial and error. Produce a wide variety of different forms of something given the current parameters and let the most suitable designs endure. The ones that don't get transformed into different ones or just not at all.


Evolution has never headed in a clear direction of improvement as would seem to be required of any "intelligence". THIS is what you see in a product of intelligence

Why should improvement necessarily be a requirement for intelligence?


It's funny that Fungi mentioned cars because it's about to prove my point. When you study the development of cars, you see a very consistent improvement over time.You don't have things randomly changing from generation to generation. You don't have them getting better, then worse, then better, then worse, then better. In fact, intelligent creation is pretty much the exact opposite of how evolution works.

I don't see how it does prove your point. Sure the general technology (complexity) of the car has improved. But are you saying that models never got worse with the next generation, and then better again? Or that a brand new "random" model didn't ever just appear on the scene only to go away again (Neon)? The VW Beetle flourished, then went extinct, only to be reborn with an updated design that resembles the form of the original. Sound familiar?
edit on 18-7-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs


Most of what you listed are instincts.


How can you prove instincts exist? Are instincts only natural chemical reactions in response to an event in the environment? How can you say that human intelligence is not instincts?



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


Equivocation, equivocation and more equivocation. I don't understand why people star posts with obvious logical fallacies. I'm sorry but comparing root structures in plants to neural networks in brains is grasping for straws big time. It's not even remotely similar. Even simple brains have thousands of neurons in them. Human brains have hundreds of billions. You are doing EXACTLY what I was talking about previously. You are judging something based on subjective appearance and equivocating them because they appear similar to you. It's the same exact argument as appealing to cell complexity and how it appears to you as mini technology. Similarities in pictures of things CAN INDEED be dismissed as coincidence. It's not even close to objective, and the deeper you analyze those systems, the more differences you find. BTW most plants have ZERO neurons. I say most because obviously there are plant-like animals and animal-like plants out there so there are exceptions to almost every rule.




Oh man, look at those! There's no way you can simply dismiss that as coincidence! The moon MUST be made of cheese!


Plants do not think. They do not experience pain, emotions, or any of the 5 senses.
Plants can see, smell, feel, and remember.


Come on now. Everything the guy says is subjective.


3. You say that plants have a sense of smell?
Sure. But to answer this we have to define for ourselves what “smell” is. When we smell something, we sense a volatile chemical that’s dissolved in the air, and then react in someway to this smell. The clearest example in plants is what happens during fruit ripening. You may have heard that if you put a ripe and an unripe fruit together in the same bag, the unripe one will ripen faster. This happens because the ripe one releases a ripening pheromone into the air, and the green fruit smells it and then starts ripening itself.


"Yeah it depends what the definition of 'is' is".


Sorry but that is not the same as smelling something. I'd like to see scientific studies on this subject, not a guy who wrote a book's opinion on the matter. Um, smell is when you breath something in and neurons are sent to the brain to interpret it. Saying that fruit ripens quicker because it "smells" the ripe fruit is silly. Obviously the chemicals in the air cause it to ripen faster. It's not like the piece of fruit is sitting there going, "oh wow, that smells nice, maybe I should make myself ripe to smell better!" I'm honestly getting tired of people using metaphors for things and taking it literally. That is not a description of smelling something. If I react to chemicals in the air, it doesn't have to be smell. So if it's raining out and I get wet and react, is it because I smelled the water? According to the logic of the person who wrote the book, I would be reacting to smell.


Being able to think is not the only thing that defines intelligence though. Problem solving can be considered to be done by thinking yet this is exactly what plants do, constantly. And yes, they do learn from previous positive or negative experiences which are stored as memories to direct future behaviors.

You can't problem solve without thinking! There's a difference between aiming at the sun when it gives you energy or using a defense mechanism that ensures survival, and having to solve a puzzle or figuring out how to solve an issue with your car. Show me the scientific studies behind plants learning and memory storage. This is the 2nd time I'm asking.


I guess you'll just have to take it up with Darwin then.

Please direct me to Darwin's work where he claims that plants are just as sophisticated as animals. That's laughable. I shouldn't even need to break down the differences, they are obvious. How about raising and teaching offspring?


Evolution is the transformation of species into more capable forms of itself or into a new species all together.

No, evolution is genetic mutations and adaptation to environments. They don't transform into more capable forms. They often receive traits that are worse. I keep saying this but it keeps being ignored. Improvement is not required for evolution.


Why should improvement necessarily be a requirement for intelligence?

Because intelligence relies on building a database of information and using it in reference to success/failure to determine which direction to go when moving to the next model. We save our information and apply it to improve products. That's how you know there is an intelligence behind it. I mean, gee, look at all major forms of technology we have today and they all have one thing in common. They improve and get better with every generation. You don't have computers go from an i7 processor back down to a Pentium 3. You don't see memory capabilities and hard drive space going down. Everything is improving constantly with intelligence. With evolution, improvement is relative. There is no clear direction other than following the environment. Random mutations do not happen in technology. Case in point.


Or that a brand new "random" model didn't ever just appear on the scene only to go away again (Neon)? The VW Beetle flourished, then went extinct, only to be reborn with an updated design that resembles the form of the original.

There's nothing "random" about it, and the fact that you had to use quotes on the word random, shows that you are forcing it to fit the description. It didn't randomly appear, it was specifically designed to appeal to certain consumers, like ALL technology.

edit on 19-7-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   
To explain consciousness, it must be described how we see in our brains. Are there even any theories as to how this is possible, or might be functioning?



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 

Equivocation, equivocation and more equivocation. I'm sorry but comparing root structures in plants to neural networks in brains is grasping for straws big time. It's not even remotely similar.

That's your own subjective opinion on the matter that seems to be reflective of your current mindset and attitude toward this discussion- which is to just debate, argue and ridicule everything without actually trying to consider what's being proposed, or at least offering anything of value in return. It seems you'd rather engage people in that manner than to have a civil discussion about the topics being presented.

I'm merely offering up evidence to show that the universe tends to favor similar type structures for networks of various kinds. It's called network theory which is a highly interdisciplinary field of study. If you actually paid attention to what I proposed you'd see that it wasn't based on appearance alone, but also how these structures are used - mainly as network flow patterns. Are you saying that root systems do not operate as networks? Current research will indicate that you'd be wrong in that assumption. There is also a network of fungus that inhabit root systems which facilitate the communication between plants underground. Networks begetting networks. And guess what? The fungus take on a similar structure.


There are laws that govern the proliferation of these structures. This is what I'm getting at. There are studies being done on this which are also being published in journals. But you seem to be ignorant to that for some reason.
Here start reading:
www.nature.com...
ucsdnews.ucsd.edu...

By performing complex supercomputer simulations of the universe and using a variety of other calculations, researchers have now proven that the causal network representing the large-scale structure of space and time in our accelerating universe is a graph that shows remarkable similarity to many complex networks such as the Internet, social, or even biological networks.
“The most frequent question that people may ask is whether the discovered asymptotic equivalence between complex networks and the universe could be a coincidence,” said Krioukov. “Of course it could be, but the probability of such a coincidence is extremely low. Coincidences in physics are extremely rare, and almost never happen. There is always an explanation, which may be not immediately obvious.



Dr. Panagariya says that the morphological similarities of a walnut with brain, beans with kidney and banana and apple with other organs of the human body could not be mere coincidence, because “coincidences in physics are extremely rare and there is always an explanation which may not be instantly obvious”.

M ore similarities between Universe and Brain, claims neurologist


You are doing EXACTLY what I was talking about previously. You are judging something based on subjective appearance and equivocating them because they appear similar to you.

No, I'm sorry but you're only misperceiving it that way. My judgement has never just been based on appearance only. I've been clear about that. I've always shown form, function, and purpose. All three. And my ideas have all been supported by current scientific research.

You're rebuttals thus far have consisted largely of say so arguments accompanied by photos of erosion and cheese.


Similarities in pictures of things CAN INDEED be dismissed as coincidence. It's not even close to objective, and the deeper you analyze those systems, the more differences you find.

/sigh
Actually no, the more we look at it the more do we see the connections, as supported by the sources I cited. It's only your opinion that there's no coincidence, which seems to be based from ignorance. The existence of patterns is fundamental to the universal order of things- or IOW physics. You can keep your head in the sand about this all you want, but it won't progress the discussion or prove you right.


BTW most plants have ZERO neurons. I say most because obviously there are plant-like animals and animal-like plants out there so there are exceptions to almost every rule.

Obviously plants don't have neurons! Who said they did? Not me, thats for sure. If you paid attention you'd have learned that plants produce the same proteins found in animal neural systems. That's the connection. So what is your point exactly?

(con't below)
edit on 20-7-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Oh man, look at those! There's no way you can simply dismiss that as coincidence! The moon MUST be made of cheese!

A complete misreprentation of what I was saying, which is not at all surprising at this point. Hey, at least you succeeded in amusing yourself. Try not to strain patting your own back for that one.


Sorry but that is not the same as smelling something. I'm honestly getting tired of people using metaphors for things and taking it literally. That is not a description of smelling something.

Oh sheesh. You're the one taking it for literal and completely missing the point. Obviously plants don't possess a nose and or nervous system like animals do but they do have an olfactory sense that can pick up on oderants( hormones, pheromones etc) released by other plants and thus induce physiological responses. The process is likened to that of the sense of smell. Here, read some more:
www.upi.com...


You can't problem solve without thinking! There's a difference between aiming at the sun when it gives you energy or using a defense mechanism that ensures survival, and having to solve a puzzle or figuring out how to solve an issue with your car.

All living things problem solve. It's not only inherent to humans. It's needed for survival, and does not require a brain, as evidenced by how plants live their lives. What they do is the very essence of what problem solving is. Fixing a car or doing a puzzle are not the only examples of problem solving. Why do you relegate it to those very limiting humanistic terms?


Show me the scientific studies behind plants learning and memory storage. This is the 2nd time I'm asking.

First of all I'm not here to serve you Barcs. So you can tone down your demands and quit pretending as if anyone owes you anything. I'll provide some of the initial research data that I've read, but not because you asked. Keep in mind this is a still an emerging field of study.

This one makes the case for aob.oxfordjournals.org...

This one is an attempt at critical analysis of (however not able to discount all the proposed findings)www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


Please direct me to Darwin's work where he claims that plants are just as sophisticated as animals. That's laughable. I shouldn't even need to break down the differences, they are obvious. How about raising and teaching offspring?

Well please then, breakdown the differences if it's so obvious. Darwin was known to compare plant and animal behavior quite often in his studies. In fact his comprehensive work into plant behavior always looked at it in comparison to animal behavior. What Darwin said was that radicles of plant roots are like that of brains in lower animals (a term he used a lot it seems). He also referred to this point as not being an exaggeration, in the conclusion of his very famous work The Power of Movement in Plants.

In relation to that:

Today, plant biologists are proud to point out that Charles Darwin actively studied plant movements and that he contributed to the discovery of the plant hormone auxin, but his comparison of plant and animal behavior is often overlooked, viewed as a distraction, and has even been used to imply that Darwin discovered or endorsed a modern “neurobiological” metaphorical or a rationalist approach to plants biology. Darwin, however, was not a rationalist. He was an empiricist, and his books on plant physiology exemplify this tendency as well as, if not better than, any of his other biological works.

Even back then he attributed plants as to having a memory, which he compared to habit forming behavior in animals. Here is a fairly comprehensive review of Darwin's very extensive yet under appreciated work on plants. I found it to be very interesting. Maybe you will too.
www.amjbot.org...


They often receive traits that are worse. I keep saying this but it keeps being ignored. Improvement is not required for evolution.

Perhaps it's being ignored because it's wrong. What's the evidence to suggest that most inherited traits are worse? Wouldn't the process of natural selection nullify your assertion?

You're view of intelligence seems somewhat narrow minded. How do you account for animal intelligence since we don't identify it with the development of technology? And what is the basis of all intelligence in your estimation?

I'll offer this since the very essence of what this influential scientist is getting at has to do with the underlying cause as I see things. Does semiotics come back to mind?
www.sciencedaily.com...
edit on 20-7-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
There's no reason to get upset at my posts. They disagree with you. I have to call it like I see it. If I'm wrong about something, I have no problem admitting it. You keep calling me demanding because I'm asking for sources for your claims. I apologize, but that's how ATS works. I'm willing to back up anything I say, at any time and I won't complain about it. I do not agree with the root/brain comparison. They might have a few similarities but they are much different in function, purpose, complexity, mechanics etc. I will break it down in detail for you soon.

"Are you saying that root systems do not operate as networks?"

I'm saying root systems do not operate as NEURAL networks. That's the comparison you made, is it not? Producing a similar protein or appearing similar in structure or functioning LIKE a network, does not make it similar to a brain or give it the ability to think. Comparing plants to lower animals (ie slug, worm, leech, etc) could have some validity to it, however I'd argue that lower animals are not intelligent.

Let me get motivated, browse through your sources, and I'll be back to give it a worthy response.
edit on 21-7-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
Let me get motivated, browse through your sources, and I'll be back to give it a worthy response.


Look forward to it.

And I wasn't getting upset, just frustrated that my efforts to at least present my case beyond just saying so was constantly being met with "no you're wrong, because it's equivocation and thus a logical fallacy" and nothing more...

I am curious to hear your take on things in general. I don't mind doing the research and I always try to steer clear of any agenda driven sources, so I can arrive at my own conclusions... I try....



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


The URL you provided is an exercise in obfuscation. There is no useful content in it, because there are no references to elements of reality that represent common knowledge, or that can be verified by the indirect tools of physics.

Perhaps it was a poor translation. A book I wrote was translated into Portuguese and became a best seller there, but a friend who was fluent in that language informed me that I would not recognize my book in that translation. It could be that complex ideas in these greatly different languages do not translate easily?

Is there anything specifically that YOU want to declare? In English?



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


I apologize Photon... I tried. I typed out a large response last week and my computer crashed at the exact wrong moment and I lost it.

I'm just going to sum up my post with the basic points. In my other one I broke down the differences between neural network and plant "networks". I didn't really see anything that substantially or objectively suggested that plant networks are all that much similar to neural networks. You may see it when comparing similar networks of lower animals and plant life, but I don't feel that they qualify. To me, Intelligence boils down to the ability to think. It seems you are being a bit broad with what you believe qualifies as intelligence. The way you describe it, makes it apply to any life form to ever exist on earth. One could point out networks in almost all of them. But then again, networks do not necessarily require intelligence, HOWEVER, intelligence does indeed require a complex network. It's interesting when you think about it, but I would honestly define lower animals and plants as not intelligent. The differences between them in intellectual ability is too large to even compare.





new topics
top topics
 
18
<< 50  51  52   >>

log in

join