Originally posted by Regret
I think that we are not disagreeing necessarily, my definition and understanding of the term intelligence is merely differing from yours. I see simple abilities as present in bacteria as the most primitive form of intelligence. The difference is that my concept of intelligence does not separate man from the bacteria, where it seems that you might give the intelligence of man some type of extra weight. For me, physiological functioning and brain functioning are only instinctual responses that are complex on a scale that makes the overall response product seem to be more grand than that of the bacteria's comparison, when in fact it is only more grand due to capacity. The complexity of the process of reaching the response also makes it seem more grand.
So you believe in intelligent design then? This stuf fis not a choice. The bacteria is chemically forced to act. Don't be an IDer and confuse complexity with evidence for intelligence. These processes are biologically forced. A similar type of thing happens in the closing of stomata...where a specific frequency and pattern of Ca2+ waves cause stomata to close.
This is nto intelligence or evidence for intelligence. At least for the Ca2+, we don't know how it works yet. However, I know more research has been done on the bacteria gradients...and I don't know hte mechanism off hand. However, this is not memory...this is "memory," its a biochemical certainty, not intelligence.
Originally posted by Alliance👆 I agree.
So you believe in intelligent design then? This stuf fis not a choice. The bacteria is chemically forced to act. Don't be an IDer and confuse complexity with evidence for intelligence. These processes are biologically forced. A similar type of thing happens in the closing of stomata...where a specific frequency and pattern of Ca2+ waves cause stomata to close.This is nto intelligence or evidence for intelligence. At least for the Ca2+, we don't know how it works yet. However, I know more research has been done on the bacteria gradients...and I don't know hte mechanism off hand. However, this is not memory...this is "memory," its a biochemical certainty, not intelligence.
Electricity only flows through the quickest route (that's why lightening is so randomly jaggered). Nothing guides the electricity, nothing created the electricity to do it, it's forced to do it because of the laws of physics.
A Cell is formed because when the elements made to make a cell, (when right in quantity) will form the shape and structure of the cell. It's the easiest way they be together, and it's easier for them to be together, than separate.
Originally posted by Alliance
So you believe in intelligent design then? This stuf fis not a choice. The bacteria is chemically forced to act. Don't be an IDer and confuse complexity with evidence for intelligence. These processes are biologically forced. A similar type of thing happens in the closing of stomata...where a specific frequency and pattern of Ca2+ waves cause stomata to close.This is nto intelligence or evidence for intelligence. At least for the Ca2+, we don't know how it works yet. However, I know more research has been done on the bacteria gradients...and I don't know hte mechanism off hand. However, this is not memory...this is "memory," its a biochemical certainty, not intelligence.
I am not an "IDer". Human intelligence is merely a response to some form of energy being transduced and altered into a neural impulse, this neural impulse is then routed through various pathways that have been set up by genetics and positive outcome of prior behavior. The more frequently a specific path is taken the stronger that path becomes, and alternate paths become weaker and will eventually die off if not used. "Choice" is a fiction from a scientific stance. We do not "make" choices, the choice has been made by the neural path that has been selected due to your experience. Given this, intelligence is not defined by choice behavior, intelligence is the proximity of the response given to the most appropriate response given in the presence of multiple stimuli. This does not entail choice, it entails an assessment of the response given regardless of describing the process as choice.
Alliance, I think you need to clearly define what you are referring to as intelligence.
Here is intelligence as I would define it, particularly given my description of "choice" behavior above:
Intelligence is the ability to respond. The complexity of the response and the level of complication of the presented stimuli combined with the level of correctness are the variables defining the measurement of such intelligence.
This is my definition of intelligence, and is what I am referring to. It is not a mentalist definition, as I believe a mental/mind stance to be an absurdity as absurd as an atheist would consider the concept of God. Regardless of man's desire to be in some way absolutely superior, man is merely more complex, not superior. Your responses show a desire to be something outside the realm of reality, are you a "God" in comparison to the bacteria? This type of attitude should make it entirely logical to believe in a superior being on the order of deity, imo. Intelligence is applied to animals, but their responses are slightly more instinctual and less choice type behavior. What you are stating is that there is a point where the behavior is no longer considered intelligent. Where is this line? It is a fiction, there is merely a lower level of the existent intelligence. Intelligence in a bacteria is merely so infinitesimally small as to be nonexistent, but this is not an absolute absence, merely a severely insignificant level of intelligence.
This is interesting
Originally posted by Regret
The ability to compare, imo, is a primitive and minuscule example of intelligence. Human intelligence is only the ability to do this same thing on a much more complex and grand cell. We have an enormous amount of neurons, and so our capacity is infinitesimally enormous by comparison to a bacteria's capability to compare.
Although I would use the term consciousness, (again, awareness in its broadest sense), as opposed to intelligence, essentially we can take this even further, to where we wish we were dealing "only" with bacteria...
gravity:mass::consciousness:complexity
In other words...
A mote of dust has a gravitational field, but said field is far below our threshold of perception, even with our most powerful instruments. We don't notice gravitational fields until we have substantial masses.
Similarly...
A mote of dust is conscious, but said awareness is far below our threshold of perception, even with our most powerful instruments. We don't notice consciousness until we have substantial complexity.
Why do we accept that a mote of dust has a gravitational field even if we can't measure it? Because our theories say so. We take it on faith.
Why do we Not accept that a dust mote has consciousness? Because we can't measure it? Observation shows a definite correlation between consciousness and complexity. We can't we take this "on faith"? Seems we are not being consistent here.
🤣
Sorry this is long.
Originally posted by Regret
I am not an "IDer".
I know, but you are, from my interpretation, making similar claims.
Originally posted by Regret
"Choice" is a fiction from a scientific stance. We do not "make" choices, the choice has been made by the neural path that has been selected due to your experience.
In some ways I agree. However, humans can make new neural connections, can learn new things, and can can alter thier behavior from instinct.
Originally posted by Regret
Given this, intelligence is not defined by choice behavior, intelligence is the proximity of the response given to the most appropriate response given in the presence of multiple stimuli. This does not entail choice, it entails an assessment of the response given regardless of describing the process as choice.
Then how do you explain novel and unpredictable human behavior, where as bacteria show none.
Originally posted by Regret
Intelligence is the ability to respond.
I think this is incorrect. The ability to respond to changes in its environment is a fundamental characterstic of life. Therefore, by this defenintion, all life is intelligent.
Water also responds, changing its structure upon changing temeperature. Is water also not intellignet under your defention?
I would argue not. The changing structure of water is a fundamental property of the water itself. The water has no role in the frequency or orientatoin of its hydrogen bonds. These properties are chemically certain (with a margin) given environmental conditions.
To extend this to antoher example...lets take dynein-micortubule interactions. One could watch this process, say for example on this wonderful video (http://www.studiodaily.com/main/searchlist/6850.html) (it has several great shots of dynein-micortubule interactions, the dynein is the molecule that pulls vesicles along MT, (it looks like tis walking along the tube, pulling a big blob behind it)), and think that this system has intellignece. (actually, you could experience this with many of the cellular processes)
However, this reaction is a biochemical certainty in the presence of ATP and the cell has little regulation over this movement. There is no conscious interaction of what vesicles need to go where, its chemical certianty. Because the cell benefits from these reactions, its easy to see any particular mechanism as a concrete certainty, but its not. All Aspects of a cell are biochemically forced to do things.
Therefore, I think response is a bad definition. We'll return to this.
Originally posted by Regret
Regardless of man's desire to be in some way absolutely superior, man is merely more complex, not superior. Your responses show a desire to be something outside the realm of reality, are you a "God" in comparison to the bacteria?
I don't really follow your logic. Most biological processes are conserved. However, Eukaryotes, specifically Anaimlas/Chordates/humans are superior to other species. This is not an ABSOLUTE superiority, nor is indicative of some sort of mandate to be better. Its merely how things work. Our cells have much more complexity, which in itself, would be a disatvantage, but this complexity gives us to have more refined control over ourselves/our environments and the ability to carry out more difficult/dramatic/advantageous tasks on both a cellular and a macro basis.
This is a gestalt theory. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Thsi applies to both cells and living organisms.
I'm not posessed by some insatiable desire to be biologically superior, but I would save a human life over a bacterias. If we are so damn comparable, I'm sure you feel guilty everytime you wash your hands, right? Nothing about humans is unnatural, we are very mortal. We are similiar to our bacterial brothers, but we are also different. Nothing about that is unrealistic. And nothing implies a god-like status of humans.
Originally posted by Regret
Intelligence is applied to animals, but their responses are slightly more instinctual and less choice type behavior. What you are stating is that there is a point where the behavior is no longer considered intelligent.
Instinct is prevelant throught all species. Instinct is designed for survival, nothing more. Intelligence is something that comes later.
Originally posted by Regret
Where is this line? It is a fiction, there is merely a lower level of the existent intelligence. Intelligence in a bacteria is merely so infinitesimally small as to be nonexistent, but this is not an absolute absence, merely a severely insignificant level of intelligence.
So...here's my interpretation.
1. Every biological process is driven by chemical reactions that ahve known rates, given certain conditions.
2. Instinct is a term given to a natural-unlearned action, all species exibit instict. The majority of any givens organism is determined by instict.
3. Intelligence is a decision to over-ride instict. While the process by which any action is carried out is chemical in nature, it is a choice and represents the ability to make a complex decision based on advanced sensory and mental inputs. In some ways, this is a matter of where you draw the line. We'll stop there for now.
Sorry this was long. What do you think?
Don't let the enemy (satan) deceive you, receive Christ into your heart and life. Hell abounds with atheists. If they could turn back the hands of time they would desperately reach for Jesus and the chance to go to Heaven. But there is no more hope for them. Don't be numbered among them. The Holy Spirit bears witness that what I speak is Truth.
Jesus Christ is Lord. Do you want eternal life? Then admit that you are a sinner, then ask Jesus Christ to give you life eternal. Jesus does not condemn you, He died for you. Will you accept Jesus now? This good news is for anyone to take advantage of. God loves the world and gave His only Begotten Son, that whoever [this includes you] believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.
Love (i.e. Jesus Christ) wants to take you out of darkness and into His marvelous light. Will you accept? Jesus' heart desire is to give you everlasting love, life, joy, peace, comfort, happiness, glory, and sin-free consciousness. Will you receive His love? Simply ask Jesus Christ to save you from sin, satan, and from Hell. Repent: turn away from sin after admitting that you are a sinner. Jesus will wash away every sin and pour out His love upon you. The words that I speak to you are the true sayings of God Almighty. Read the Bible and see that the Lord is good. He is not holding anything against you. He has not condemned you. Jesus came to save souls not condemn them. Love--Jesus Christ--will wait for your decision. If you should choose satan, your decision will be honored by God. But choose Life, choose the Prince of Peace, choose Jesus Christ, the Son of God and you will receive eternal life. This good news is for everyone and anyone else who reads it
Originally posted by debbiejo
I only agree that Jesus taught love. Everything else is Pauline based on Mithra........I would chose Jesus instead of Paul. Wouldn't you?
Will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord Debbiejoe? With all due respect you speak so many heresies and blasphemies. I am not just saying that because I have read your posts that confirm what I have just said.
Originally posted by Alliance
Sorry this was long. What do you think?
I cut the body out of this quote merely for ease of responding. I think I may not understand bacteria well enough so as to argue properly my stance.
I would not classify water as intelligent, as it does not qualify as living? But then, is that me drawing a line similar to the one I accused you of?
Man does not create entirely "new" neural connections, so much as new neural connections occur and are destroyed if they do not improve the efficiency and function of the system.
Novel behaviors, as well as the rate of novel behavior occurrence, can be controlled by external stimuli and proper contingencies. Given this, it may not necessarily be man's creativity/intelligence, it may simply be a response to external variables.
I think that my knowledge of biochemistry is too weak to discuss and debate this adequately, I also think that your understanding of behavior analysis and learning theory hold similar constraints. I do not believe you understand the perspective I take on the subject. If I can find a decent explanation of the behavioral stance on psychology I will PM it to you, so that we can understand each other better. Particularly Skinarian Behaviorism.
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveOf course they are full of heresies. I'm a heretic for gods sake......... 🙄
Will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord Debbiejoe? With all due respect you speak so many heresies and blasphemies. I am not just saying that because I have read your posts that confirm what I have just said.
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveThis thread was not created to convert atheists to theism, let alone to a particular brand of theism. Your posts are totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. The topic is why an individual would choose atheism and the logic/rationale that leads them to this stance along with a debate of said logic/rationale. The discussion should be relevant to a rational, logical and scientific state and not defined by Christianity or any other religion unless the subject turns that direction.
Don't let the enemy (satan) deceive you, receive Christ into your heart and life. Hell abounds with atheists. If they could turn back the hands of time they would desperately reach for Jesus and the chance to go to Heaven. But there is no more hope for them. Don't be numbered among them. The Holy Spirit bears witness that what I speak is Truth.Jesus Christ is Lord. Do you want eternal life? Then admit that you are a sinner, then ask Jesus Christ to give you life eternal. Jesus does not condemn you, He died for you. Will you accept Jesus now? This good news is for anyone to take advantage of. God loves the world and gave His only Begotten Son, that whoever [this includes you] believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.
Love (i.e. Jesus Christ) wants to take you out of darkness and into His marvelous light. Will you accept? Jesus' heart desire is to give you everlasting love, life, joy, peace, comfort, happiness, glory, and sin-free consciousness. Will you receive His love? Simply ask Jesus Christ to save you from sin, satan, and from Hell. Repent: turn away from sin after admitting that you are a sinner. Jesus will wash away every sin and pour out His love upon you. The words that I speak to you are the true sayings of God Almighty. Read the Bible and see that the Lord is good. He is not holding anything against you. He has not condemned you. Jesus came to save souls not condemn them. Love--Jesus Christ--will wait for your decision. If you should choose satan, your decision will be honored by God. But choose Life, choose the Prince of Peace, choose Jesus Christ, the Son of God and you will receive eternal life. This good news is for everyone and anyone else who reads it
Your posts have nothing at all relevant in them to the question posed in the initiating post, nor any of the following posts. If you want to speak to a topic address it in one of the threads you have already created on the subject. Here is a list of threads that were created for the purpose your post here addresses, there are more, but here are a couple:
What Do You Believe? Here Is What We Believe:
The fool has said in his/her heart there is no God
God loves all of you even if no one else does