Well I was talking about bacteria common sense dictates that does not exclude bacteria in a group.
The fact of the matter is even if bacteria does not show intelligence individually they still show intelligence in a group. Bacteria can be considered to be intelligent.
Gender: Unspecified Location: One for the other hand
No it doesn’t, when you talk a about a human you don’t mean the human race or any other group of animals. Even is a group they show a form or intelligence but not intelligence, just because something can show a behavior of something doesn’t necessarily mean that they posses this.
Gender: Unspecified Location: One for the other hand
I can’t remember my Biology class that well (been like 16 years) but if I remember right when they do work together they become something else like a super organism which is greater as a whole and not treated as the same.
Gender: Male Location: Drifting off around the bend
Given this definition, my evidence is relying on or derived from personal observation. If when defining experiment, you include any premeditated act that had assumed a specific type of result, then it could be said that it was an experiment. Using the term practical, yes, my actions were based on, and guided by, previous experience. So, given the definition of empirical the evidence is empirical. Is the evidence such that it is beyond doubt? For me, yes, is it beyond the ability of another, that was not present at the time of the event, to doubt, no. Is the experience replicable? Yes and no, the experience is not adequately controlled as many variables involved (particularly the God aspect) are beyond the scope of any control.
Gender: Male Location: Drifting off around the bend
You would need to define intelligence to rule out intelligence in minute organism. Salmonella bacteria compare concentrations of desirable "food" sources at their "head" and "tail". These bacteria will then "follow" a trail of food once found. This, imo, could be defined as intelligence, albeit minuscule in degree compared to any more complex organism.
Gender: Unspecified Location: One for the other hand
That is more instinct and reaction then intelligence.
intelligence
1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
2. manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit.
3. the faculty of understanding.
4. knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information.
5. the gathering or distribution of information, esp. secret information.
If children were never told about gods and such I do not believe they would be atheists. They would experience things and know that there is something bigger....Possibly they would become Agnostic.
I am not driven by people’ s praise and I am not slowed down by people’ s criticism.
You only live once. But if you live it right, once is enough. Wrong. We only die once, we live every day!
Make poverty history.
Gender: Male Location: Drifting off around the bend
And, how is such measured?
I apologize to you, but even extremely well versed psychologists have difficulty defining what intelligence is, let alone measuring and quantifying the subject. Your definition is broad and avoids the fact that everything you do is based on the response/consequence relationship of all your actions since your initial response and/or external effect in your mother's womb. It could all be merely instinct and reaction, your perspective is the only thing that states it is otherwise.
Definition 1 - How is such measured? Would you apply the same type of test to the: Blind, Deaf, Maimed, etc.? No, the test is tailored to the subject, so much so that those in black minorities, especially those in ghetto type neighborhoods, are measured and scored differently than other individuals. Thus, an intelligence test of the bacteria must be tailored to the bacteria's capability to respond and "hear".
Definition 2 - Manifestation of high mental capacity. Measurement of this is also tailored to the subject.
Definition 3 - Understanding is observed through some behavior, if I make a trail of "food" and the bacteria follows it, it understands where I want it to go.
Definition 4 - knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted. If I place the trail of "food", and the bacteria follows it, it has shown knowledge received.
Definition 5 is in reference to groups such as CIA.
Bacteria are showing intelligence given the only means by which such a concept can be measured, observation of behavior.
Gender: Male Location: Drifting off around the bend
Given the concept that all religion and concepts are completely man-made, Man is not inherently atheist. An inherently atheist entity would not inherently create religion and accompanying concepts. So, it must be assumed that man is not inherently atheist. This is not logically stating that man is inherently theist, only that man cannot be inherently atheist.
Like what? Intersteller communication is exceedingly unprobable for us...there is a reason sci-fi gets around that by breaking the laws of physics and using strange devices.
Well, since you apparently know so much about dimension, you'd knwo that a dimension does not equal a universe.
Not likely. Bacteria have no brains. They cannot think. Humans can act against instinct. Thats obvious to anyone that studies us for awhile.
That model of the atom died in 1927 (see Heisenberg). Get over it. Real atoms look nothing like solar systems, aside form the fact that there is a lot of mass at the center.
This is bullshit. Intelligence needs to be expressed at the base level. Its like saying two cogs demonstrate intelligence because they can work together. Clearly wrong. No biologist considers bacteria to be intelligent.
This leads us too...
No, this is nto intellignece, this is a programmed biological response. The cell cannot decide not to chacse the food. It HAS to chase it. If the cell could change its mind of its OWN free will and say "I will starve myself to death," then it would exibit intelligence.
Yes, and heavan forbid you weren't comfortable.
No offence, psychologists may have a tough time defining intelligence, but when it comes down to the biochemistry of the cell, its damn easy. The defenition becomes mroe complex when you move into more complex structures.
I think my defintion of the ability to over-ride instinct is a good defention for this biological problem.
Gender: Unspecified Location: One for the other hand
Intelligence can be measured in many things based on behavior and responses to stimuli. If bacteria learned then no amount of drugs or medicine would fight them because they would learn to avoid such chemicals, they will evolve or become immune to such things but they do not learn or have the capacity too.
However the test for intellect is not based on the type of person or what or who they are but can they. The measure of intelligence is a different matter and is not testing if they have intelligence but how much and this is where other environmental factors will come into play.
Only because with the new sciences that have discovered that things are out side of our reality and not yet known............and why not something much bigger than us?.............That would be just Agnostic..............