1st December 2005, 4:16 PM
Incorrect. You make the assumption that a germ, for example, actually WANTS to stay alive. All those things you listed DO make it clear a single celled creature is alive, but not aware. Awareness is not needed for any of those functions. All of them are very robotic in their nature. The single celled creature never once makes a real decision. It merely reacts.
I must also say this. So you define "self awareness" as living. Is that all? So there is no qualitative state requirement? There is no need for, on some level, the creature to be all "I EXIST!", at all? Sounds odd to define self awareness and make awareness not a requirement. Is a video camera set to set off an alarm when it detects motion "aware"? If the answer is yes, well, it's not alive in any sense. If the answer is no, okay then. Then what IS that state of being there, some haze of "I AM" that you should know I was speaking of? Would you rather call it "sentience"? Some other term? Whatever you may call it, the idea is that something isn't merely reacting but is actually "there" in the sense of a mind, in the way that you or I aren't just typing things, we're here EXPERIENCING it.
Allow me to ellaborate on all those functions. To reproduce, the chemistry merely reaches a point where that reaction takes place automatically. It splits the DNA, matches up the sequences with parts inside, and then has two functioning strands of DNA, which then recurl into the balls they once were. Not once is the need for a choice required. It's a chemical reaction. The same goes for food. Bacteria capable of movement do not experience hunger. All we have observed is that when certain molecules are detected, the bacteria will undergo a chemical reaction that causes it to, eventually, move in the direction the chemicals came from. No thought is needed, and indeed none is detected. The bacteria never "stalks", it merely moves directly to the point, from reaction. It doesn't even compute anything on the level of a computer. It is simply direct cause and effect. I'm not saying intelligence isn't that as well, but bacteria lack the qualitative experience. As far as living rather than dying, think about the nature of evolution. Anything that lives will continue to live. Anything that dies will not CONTINUE to die, but rather IS dead and can never pass on those genes that made it dead. So ONLY bacteria that reproduce and are capable of sustaining themselves WILL exist, because those that couldn't, won't, and can't ever pass on those attributes that lead to nonexistance, because they don't exist to do so.
Nothing you have listed about the single celled creature indicates any level of awareness.
When I mention a brick, I mean everything a brick will ever do is a direct reaction to it's environment. It isn't alive because it has none of the traits "living" is defined by. However, if you strike it with a hammer, the reaction it gives is to shatter. If you paint it, it will be coated in paint. If you put it in water, it becomes wet, possibly absorbing the water. If you let it be, it stays still until another force acts upon it. A uranium brick has a little more self action, but it's still just physics. Conciousness is not needed to explain that behavior, so why take that extra step?
Seriously, if you want to establish that a bacteria is aware of itself, you must show evidence that it acts in a way consistant with awareness.
This is the rational approach.
And by the way, Albert, bad at math? That's a common myth. He certainly couldn't do a lot of it in his head, but have you actually seen his formulas? I'm pretty sure the average person here is completely incapable of doing the math he was capable of. Relativity is quantitated by him, not just some random junk he made up on the spot to be "inventive". The only reason he even came up with relativity was that he based it on his observations of the world around him. He came up with many models, and creativity is important in this regard, but it must take a back seat to observable reality.
Emotion is not seperate from rational thought. They are intertwined, as well as the "will" of the individual, and ALL are required for intelligence.
Rather than spouting random stuff, back it up. You are very smart, but this is hardly evidence. IQ, by the way, is mearly the measurement of how well one is at certain applications of intelligence. You speak of imagination, you speak of emotion, and you speak of intelligence, but you don't seem to realize ALL of them are interrelated and absolutely required for rational thinking. Keep in mind, logic, just as the rest, can become twisted. Someone can easily make a very logical argument, but when observable reality doesn't back it up...
You are right about one thing. Intelligence doesn't make you smart :D.
However, you actually seem to have a huge problem with the very idea of intellect. Do you consider scientists to be mostly evil people or something? It wouldn't be a first, but I just want to clarify. Do you have any inherant problems with science?
I must also say this. So you define "self awareness" as living. Is that all? So there is no qualitative state requirement? There is no need for, on some level, the creature to be all "I EXIST!", at all? Sounds odd to define self awareness and make awareness not a requirement. Is a video camera set to set off an alarm when it detects motion "aware"? If the answer is yes, well, it's not alive in any sense. If the answer is no, okay then. Then what IS that state of being there, some haze of "I AM" that you should know I was speaking of? Would you rather call it "sentience"? Some other term? Whatever you may call it, the idea is that something isn't merely reacting but is actually "there" in the sense of a mind, in the way that you or I aren't just typing things, we're here EXPERIENCING it.
Allow me to ellaborate on all those functions. To reproduce, the chemistry merely reaches a point where that reaction takes place automatically. It splits the DNA, matches up the sequences with parts inside, and then has two functioning strands of DNA, which then recurl into the balls they once were. Not once is the need for a choice required. It's a chemical reaction. The same goes for food. Bacteria capable of movement do not experience hunger. All we have observed is that when certain molecules are detected, the bacteria will undergo a chemical reaction that causes it to, eventually, move in the direction the chemicals came from. No thought is needed, and indeed none is detected. The bacteria never "stalks", it merely moves directly to the point, from reaction. It doesn't even compute anything on the level of a computer. It is simply direct cause and effect. I'm not saying intelligence isn't that as well, but bacteria lack the qualitative experience. As far as living rather than dying, think about the nature of evolution. Anything that lives will continue to live. Anything that dies will not CONTINUE to die, but rather IS dead and can never pass on those genes that made it dead. So ONLY bacteria that reproduce and are capable of sustaining themselves WILL exist, because those that couldn't, won't, and can't ever pass on those attributes that lead to nonexistance, because they don't exist to do so.
Nothing you have listed about the single celled creature indicates any level of awareness.
When I mention a brick, I mean everything a brick will ever do is a direct reaction to it's environment. It isn't alive because it has none of the traits "living" is defined by. However, if you strike it with a hammer, the reaction it gives is to shatter. If you paint it, it will be coated in paint. If you put it in water, it becomes wet, possibly absorbing the water. If you let it be, it stays still until another force acts upon it. A uranium brick has a little more self action, but it's still just physics. Conciousness is not needed to explain that behavior, so why take that extra step?
Seriously, if you want to establish that a bacteria is aware of itself, you must show evidence that it acts in a way consistant with awareness.
This is the rational approach.
And by the way, Albert, bad at math? That's a common myth. He certainly couldn't do a lot of it in his head, but have you actually seen his formulas? I'm pretty sure the average person here is completely incapable of doing the math he was capable of. Relativity is quantitated by him, not just some random junk he made up on the spot to be "inventive". The only reason he even came up with relativity was that he based it on his observations of the world around him. He came up with many models, and creativity is important in this regard, but it must take a back seat to observable reality.
Emotion is not seperate from rational thought. They are intertwined, as well as the "will" of the individual, and ALL are required for intelligence.
Rather than spouting random stuff, back it up. You are very smart, but this is hardly evidence. IQ, by the way, is mearly the measurement of how well one is at certain applications of intelligence. You speak of imagination, you speak of emotion, and you speak of intelligence, but you don't seem to realize ALL of them are interrelated and absolutely required for rational thinking. Keep in mind, logic, just as the rest, can become twisted. Someone can easily make a very logical argument, but when observable reality doesn't back it up...
You are right about one thing. Intelligence doesn't make you smart :D.
However, you actually seem to have a huge problem with the very idea of intellect. Do you consider scientists to be mostly evil people or something? It wouldn't be a first, but I just want to clarify. Do you have any inherant problems with science?
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)