Why atheism?

Originally posted by debbiejo
Only because with the new sciences that have discovered that things are out side of our reality and not yet known......Why closed minded? Are we like the 1400's with"we need proof"?? Galileo was thrown in prison for only his proof.......and why not something much bigger than us?.............That would be just Agnostic..............

sorry this was supposed to be an edit.l

Originally posted by Regret
...but even extremely well versed psychologists have difficulty defining what intelligence is, let alone measuring and quantifying the subject...

Are we like the 1400's with"we need proof"??

Originally posted by Alliance
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.

This is assuming that man has "free will", which from a strictly scientific stance is still up to debate. It can be empirically argued that man does not make choices, but acts according to his history and the stimuli present dictate. Such a stance would be backed with more objective and empirical evidence than any other stance in all of psychological study. Given this, a statement of "I will starve myself to death," may just be an instinctual response, albeit advanced and complex, nothing more than a predictable response if a complete understanding of the subjects history is known. Choice is an amusing concept that for me must suggest a deity as choice, looked at scientifically, has less scientific probability of existing as God.

Originally posted by Alliance
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.

Yes, it does become more complex. This does not rule out primitive intelligence.

I would refer you to McNab and Koshland (1972) The Gradient-sensing mechanism in bacterial chemotaxis. In their experiment they proved that the bacteria had some form of short term memory. I believe that if memory exists, and thereby a comparison is made, so does some primitive form of intelligence. Particularly since choice, and thereby "free will", is merely a comparison between two or more options.

Also, you should not attack the validity of scientists, regardless of your opinion of their field. If psychologists are not the experts in this subject, then all scientists may be taken under the same suspicion as to their validity in their respective fields.

Originally posted by ThePittman
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.

Bacteria do learn, the problem with their learning is lack of longterm memory. Bacteria "forget" quickly. I would refer you to the Stentor, a single celled organism, particularly Jennings (1906/1976) Behavior of lower organisms. Jennings showed avoidance behavior learned in the Stentor.

If a single celled organism can show discriminatory behavior, it is showing intelligence.

Originally posted by ThePittman
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.

I am not quite sure of your point with this paragraph, and perhaps I am interpreting what you wrote incorrectly.

Originally posted by Regret
Also, you should not attack the validity of scientists, regardless of your opinion of their field. If psychologists are not the experts in this subject, then all scientists may be taken under the same suspicion as to their validity in their respective fields.

"Scientist" is a fluid and subjective defintion. It is my observation that the word "science" and "art" are whored out to almost any field in order to lend it credibility.

That aside, I think a molecular biologist would know a lot more about cell mechanics than a psychologist. So maybe you should let people who know more about cellular processes do the talking about them. Look at what I wrote:

Originally posted by Alliance
No offence, psychologists may have a tough time defining intelligence, but when it comes down to the biochemistry of the cell, its damn easy.

I think my defintion of the ability to over-ride instinct is a good defention for this biological problem.

Now did I attack your field? No. I did not. If intelligence becomes more complex with more complex structures (which you agreed with) then the opposite is true. Since we are discussing bacteria...(do psychologists usually study bacteria? I didn't think so)...this is my realm.

The example you used, (bacteria following food) is a CLEAR example of instinct, not decision. Its (in many ways) no more "intelligent" then you blinking your eyes when something flies infront of your face.

I'll address the rest of your points later if I can find that article after my meeting.

This looks like a job for...perhaps partially defining intelligence either as 1) existing along a continuum which overlays the entire continuum of life, or 2) just part of it, say the part with higher animals.

That bacteria learn would imply #1, but then this wouldn't be the common meaning of intelligence. IMO, it also tends to confuse intelligence with consciousness (awareness in its broadest sense).

If we limit "intelligence" to an organism willfully using subjective "as ifs" as a means of understanding and controlling the objective world--applying mental maps--then we refer to organisms with differentiated mapping systems: nervous systems. This differentiation allows the organism to get perspective (however vague or clear-cut) on its own subjective experience so that willful deployment of maps can occur. Along this vein, bacteria are not intelligent (they have no nervous system), though clearly they have the capacity to be aware of and adapt to their environment thanks to far simpler biomolecular processes.

In a nutshell: you don't have to be intelligent to learn, just aware, because intelligence encompasses more than just learning from the past. It also involves anticipating the future, especially if you do something to bring about a desired outcome.

Intelligence is like porn: tough to define, but you know it when you see it.

Originally posted by Mindship
This looks like a job for...perhaps partially defining intelligence either as 1) existing along a continuum which overlays the entire continuum of life, or 2) just part of it, say the part with higher animals.

That bacteria learn would imply #1, but then this wouldn't be the common meaning of intelligence. IMO, it also tends to confuse intelligence with consciousness (awareness in its broadest sense).

If we limit "intelligence" to an organism willfully using subjective "as ifs" as a means of understanding and controlling the objective world--applying mental maps--then we refer to organisms with differentiated mapping systems: nervous systems. This differentiation allows the organism to get perspective (however vague or clear-cut) on its own subjective experience so that willful deployment of maps can occur. Along this vein, bacteria are not intelligent (they have no nervous system), though clearly they have the capacity to be aware of and adapt to their environment thanks to far simpler biomolecular processes.

In a nutshell: you don't have to be intelligent to learn, just aware, because intelligence encompasses more than just learning from the past. It also involves anticipating the future, especially if you do something to bring about a desired outcome.

Intelligence is like porn: tough to define, but you know it when you see it.

Originally posted by Alliance
"Scientist" is a fluid and subjective defintion. It is my observation that the word "science" and "art" are whored out to almost any field in order to lend it credibility.

That aside, I think a molecular biologist would know a lot more about cell mechanics than a psychologist. So maybe you should let people who know more about cellular processes do the talking about them. Look at what I wrote:

Now did I attack your field? No. I did not. If intelligence becomes more complex with more complex structures (which you agreed with) then the opposite is true. Since we are discussing bacteria...(do psychologists usually study bacteria? I didn't think so)...this is my realm.

The example you used, (bacteria following food) is a CLEAR example of instinct, not decision. Its (in many ways) no more "intelligent" then you blinking your eyes when something flies infront of your face.

I'll address the rest of your points later if I can find that article after my meeting.

Originally posted by Regret
Bacteria do learn, the problem with their learning is lack of longterm memory. Bacteria "forget" quickly. I would refer you to the Stentor, a single celled organism, particularly Jennings (1906/1976) Behavior of lower organisms. Jennings showed avoidance behavior learned in the Stentor.

If a single celled organism can show discriminatory behavior, it is showing intelligence.

I am not quite sure of your point with this paragraph, and perhaps I am interpreting what you wrote incorrectly.

Microbial Intelligence is still not dealing with a single cell and when you combine more cells (and they don’t do this by thought) they become something different. We are just a combination of single cells but no one would say that we don’t think but take off a skin cell and it dies because it is part of the whole.

Originally posted by Regret
I can understand your points here. Although, I have done work with single neurons. I have classically conditioned a neuron to fire in higher bursts to receive the related neurotransmitter, in the presence of a discriminative stimulus. I have friends that have worked with bacteria and studied bacterial behavior given various stimuli and various methods of presenting such stimuli. I do not claim that we have any great understanding of biochemistry, but we (behavior analysts) do have a greater understanding of behavior and learning than do biochemists, in any organism.

Since when does conditioning or behavior imply intelligece?

And no, you don't have a handle on the behavior of any organism especially without the small ones. All you can study is cause and effect. We say WHY.

Originally posted by Regret
McNab and Koshland (1972)

All they studied was chomotaxis. This had been observed for over a century.

The ONLY reference to anything remotely supporting anything you are saying is from the las sentnace of their abstract. "Potential models for the chemotactic response based on some “memory” mechanism are discussed."

The ""memory"" shows me that even they hesitate to actually call it memory, buyt just for the sake of argument...I went to that section of the paper.

They say "they have some sort of "memory" device that compares present and past environmental conentrations" Well, comparing concentrations is not that difficult with a simple receptor.

Its to late for me to read the rest. Its my opinion that nothing they found implies intelligence at all.

Originally posted by Storm
Why does there have to be something bigger?

Originally posted by Alliance
I realize most of these have been answered.

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.

I have not seen any of this stuff answered you had better answer it again. The existence of aliens is not unprobable it is highly likely. The existence of aliens is not breaking the laws of physics

Originally posted by Alliance

Well, since you apparently know so much about dimension, you'd knwo that a dimension does not equal a universe.

Well you also said that bacteria are not intelligent from what I can see there is a difference of opinion. No doubt there are probably different defintions for dimensions which include universes as well. 🙄 Fact of the matter remains even if aliens did not exist in this one just by probability alone there will be other aliens beings much more advanced than us that we could consider gods.

Originally posted by Alliance

Not likely. Bacteria have no brains. They cannot think. Humans can act against instinct. Thats obvious to anyone that studies us for awhile.

Again there is a difference of opinion. Even if I did not want to pick on bacteria we could look at insects. You have different lifeforms some more advanced than others. Since insects exist and humans exist its is not improbable for there to be beings that consider us to be like bacteria or insects.

Originally posted by Alliance

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.

I didnt know that.

Originally posted by Alliance

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.

There is a difference of opinion lol. Thats your defintion. Even then insects are considered to be intelligent, that still does not refute the fact that it is not improbable that there are beings out there are more advanced than us

Originally posted by Alliance

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.

Hey you know what? From what I can see you are being a typical atheist. There seems to be a difference of opinion about wether bacteria is intelligent or not, but your acting like its gospel. You have started being insulting telling me to "get over it".

All you have proved is that basically bacteria being intelligent or not is subjective. Basically even if they dont exist we could pick on insects. Eventhough this does not prove without a shadow of a doubt the existence of God, the fact of the matter if there are lifeforms superior to us it is a likely possibility that there are lifeforms more advanced than us. An ant may have encountered a human being but i doubt they really know what it is. If I decided to blow on an ant colony they would probably think it was a natural occurence like the weather.

Originally posted by Alliance

Yes, and heavan forbid you weren't comfortable.

See what I mean?

Originally posted by Alliance

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.

Originally posted by Alliance

I think my defintion of the ability to over-ride instinct is a good defention for this biological problem.

No it isnt! Its just one way of looking at it but you're an atheist therefore eveything you say makes sense and im stupid because I belive in God.

There bacteria
There are insects
There are animals and reptiles
There are humans

Whats next? I dunno must be nothing there....I must be irrattional for thinking that there is nothing highier than humans..... 😕

Originally posted by Alfheim
Again there is a difference of opinion. Even if I did not want to pick on bacteria we could look at insects. You have different lifeforms some more advanced than others. Since insects exist and humans exist its is not improbable for there to be beings that consider us to be like bacteria or insects.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Hey you know what? From what I can see you are being a typical atheist. There seems to be a difference of opinion about wether bacteria is intelligent or not, but your acting like its gospel. You have started being insulting telling me to "get over it".

All you have proved is that basically bacteria being intelligent or not is subjective. Basically even if they dont exist we could pick on insects. Eventhough this does not prove without a shadow of a doubt the existence of God, the fact of the matter if there are lifeforms superior to us it is a likely possibility that there are lifeforms more advanced than us. An ant may have encountered a human being but i doubt they really know what it is. If I decided to blow on an ant colony they would probably think it was a natural occurence like the weather. .

Originally posted by Regret
Agreed, although I would have differing view of the mechanics entailed in a more complex level of intelligence given my behavioral bent 😉 I think though we have gotten slightly off the subject. I think we went into this line through discussion as to if an infant was born theist, atheist or something else neutral to the two stances.

I'm going with neutral. I feel safe to say bacteria are probably neutral too in that regard. 😮‍💨

Originally posted by ThePittman
Insects and bacteria are COMPLETELY two different things, which would be like comparing and apple to a whale.

Yeah but yoiu missed my point. Do I have to go over it again?

Originally posted by ThePittman

This has nothing to do with the existence of God, many atheist believe that there could be a higher life form but the All Powerful God that created all is the issue and God is supposed to be a God and not a higher life form which would mean that the Bible is BS.

Please explain to me how you can believe in highier lifeforms but then its illogical to take it one step further and belive in All Powerful god.

Originally posted by Alfheim
I have not seen any of this stuff answered you had better answer it again. The existence of aliens is not unprobable it is highly likely. The existence of aliens is not breaking the laws of physics

I don't think he was saying aliens were impossible - that is extraterrestrial life. However, while there is a good chance that there is life out there, the probability is reduced if we add the description "sentient life." It becomes even less likely if we add "possess interstellar communication and warp speed." Sci- fi - Science -fiction. Some of it operates on hard scientific theory - so theoretically possible but extremely unlikely. Other works? They don't let realistic science hinder a good story.

Well you also said that bacteria are not intelligent from what I can see there is a difference of opinion. No doubt there are probably different defintions for dimensions which include universes as well. 🙄 Fact of the matter remains even if aliens did not exist in this one just by probability alone there will be other aliens beings much more advanced than us that we could consider gods.

Ummm... what is your definition of intelligence? Bacteria, by its very nature, doesn't have a brain. Nor even rudimentary intelligence found in simple animals. Or for that matter insects. Arguably you could say "you also said trees are not intelligent from what I see there is a difference of opinion."

The likelihood of bacterial or microscopic life existing is excellent. In fact if earth was to go all yucky it is assumed the last vestiges of life to disappear would be microscopic organisms living around volcano vents deep in the ocean. But they are not intelligent. The universe if 13.7 billion years old - some scientists estimate that a simple life form can evolve in about 10 million years. For sufficiently advanced life forms considerably longer. For sentient lifeforms? That is hard to predict, because at this point in time "intelligent" life is something of an anomaly. Even amongst the mass of different life on earth only one species has achieved this - and that was touch and go.

The likelihood of intelligent aliens? Not impossible. The likelihood of super advanced sci-fi like aliens? Extremely low.

Again there is a difference of opinion. Even if I did not want to pick on bacteria we could look at insects. You have different lifeforms some more advanced than others. Since insects exist and humans exist its is not improbable for there to be beings that consider us to be like bacteria or insects.

As above... and above.

I didnt know that.

It's true.

There is a difference of opinion lol. Thats your defintion. Even then insects are considered to be intelligent, that still does not refute the fact that it is not improbable that there are beings out there are more advanced than us

Factor in variables, probability, necessary evolutionary time spans, the possibility that an intelligent species might be as violant as us, the chance for random events (planet passing through radiation from a Nova, getting hit by a comet) the necessary planetary conditions (geography, motivation, mineral resources etc, disease) and so on.

Hey you know what? From what I can see you are being a typical atheist. There seems to be a difference of opinion about wether bacteria is intelligent or not, but your acting like its gospel. You have started being insulting telling me to "get over it".

Ummm. Science? Bacteria would not be classed as intelligent? Because, you know, it's not.

All you have proved is that basically bacteria being intelligent or not is subjective. Basically even if they don't exist we could pick on insects. Eventhough this does not prove without a shadow of a doubt the existence of God, the fact of the matter if there are lifeforms superior to us it is a likely possibility that there are lifeforms more advanced than us. An ant may have encountered a human being but i doubt they really know what it is. If I decided to blow on an ant colony they would probably think it was a natural occurence like the weather.

First of all - it is not subjective. Bacteria does not meet any of the criteria to qualify as possessing the most rudimentary intelligence.

Insect intelligence is a whole different kettle of fish. And once again is not comparable to human intelligence. It isn't as simple as saying "well, out there there might be aliens who are, in terms of intelligence, like humans while we would be like bacteria. Or insects." And typically ants don't think about the weather.

As to aliens more intelligent to us? Not impossible. However the claim they are a "likely possibility" is far from true. It would be "an extremely unlikely possibility."

No it isnt! Its just one way of looking at it but you're an atheist therefore eveything you say makes sense and im stupid because I belive in God.

There bacteria
There are insects
There are animals and reptiles
There are humans

Whats next? I dunno must be nothing there....I must be irrattional for thinking that there is nothing highier than humans..... 😕

Doesn't work like that. And there could be things higher then humans. Heavens above humanity today could be considered higher then those desperate humans 50,000 years ago. But it isn't as simple as comparing insects and humans.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Yeah but yoiu missed my point. Do I have to go over it again?

Please explain to me how you can believe in highier lifeforms but then its illogical to take it one step further and belive in All Powerful god.

It is very logical to believe in a higher life form without believing in God. One is that the concept of God is out of the scope of normal reason, that one thing/person created all and has control over all that is, will be and ever was. Human only use about 10% of their brain, it is unknown of the abilities or knowledge that one can do if using all of the brainpower. Even with the discussion about intelligence an ant looking at a human could be a God, but are humans Gods? It only makes since that there is something higher then humans, humans may eventually evolve past where we are now or there could be another leap in evolution and we have something better or different.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Please explain to me how you can believe in highier lifeforms but then its illogical to take it one step further and belive in All Powerful god.

Doesn't seem so hard to me.

There are humans. In the absence of God, which seems likely, we evolved, naturally. Along the way we achieved sentient intelligence that set us apart from the rest of the living world.

There is higher and lower life all around us - naturally occurring, and fully within the bounds of science. We see proof of it. I see no proof of God, especially not a God that people claim is not bound by science, and second apparently is deadly to look at.

Humans have advanced in all fields since homo sapain came about. It is possible to theorise that there might be other life in the universe that is more technologically/biologically advanced. Maybe to the point of being higher life. It seem unreasonable to believe that there is somehow a being completely beyond such things who started as high as one can get, yet doesn't stagnate or experience entropy or whatever.

It is not illogical not to take the step and go "We have bacteria and humans, why not humans and God." - In fact I think it is highly logical not to think like that.

On this whole intelligence argument...

I have never, ever seen bacteria classified as having intelligence, being capable of possessing intelligence, etc. Alive does not equal intelligent.

NOR - does conditioning equal intelligence. You can condition people and animals to do some pretty damn stupid things that normally they wouldn't do.