8th December 2005, 9:19 AM
We are not debating on if a cat has conciousness.
And by the way, the fact that you think the ability to learn is needed to evolve shows your lack of imagination.
I have explained in excrutiating detail exactly how evolution operates. Things that survive, survive. Things that die, die. Bacteria mutate very fast. There is no need for it to WANT to do so, it just happens. If you apply antibiotic to a large enough culture, SOME of the bacteria will be capable of withstanding it. They didn't DECIDE anything. Some of them just mutated. These mutations would have happened anyway. The difference is that in a situation where all the ones that don't have that mutation die, ONLY those with the mutation will live on. However, when all the ones without it continue to live, those with the mutation will continue to be the minority, if they live at all.
You can be very insightful sometimes. However, in this case you are overthinking things.
Why is conciousness needed to explain this behavior? Why is mere reaction and the occasional genetic mutation not enough to explain it?
You state blindly that white blood cells are aware the host needs to survive for them to survive. That's not proper evidence. That's stating another unsupported hypothesis to "prove" your original unsupported hypothesis. What is the proof they actually know the body needs to survive for them to survive? Why is it not sufficient to say their behavior simply is to react to certain stimulus? What mechanism allows them to know and comprehend this? Bacteria, any single celled creature, have no known mechanism for storing memories. DNA is a pretty far fetched thing there. By that, the entire present universe is a massive "memory" of the past.
Once again, you are faced with the absurdity that to apply conciousness to creatures with no mechanism for being aware you must apply it to ALL things in the universe.
And your definition of conciousness sucks by the way. Try to define it in a way that is not self referential.
And, just so you know, the majority of the people at that board have actually majored in various fields of science, some of them in biology. Don't take lightly what they have to say, if you even bothered going there at all. The fact is, you are NOT properly representing the findings of science, and you seem to think it's because I have some fundamental issue with single celled creatures being concious? No! That would be an amazing discovery! However, nothing points to that! You just support your own arguments with made up stuff that itself is not supported by evidence!
And by the way, the fact that you think the ability to learn is needed to evolve shows your lack of imagination.
I have explained in excrutiating detail exactly how evolution operates. Things that survive, survive. Things that die, die. Bacteria mutate very fast. There is no need for it to WANT to do so, it just happens. If you apply antibiotic to a large enough culture, SOME of the bacteria will be capable of withstanding it. They didn't DECIDE anything. Some of them just mutated. These mutations would have happened anyway. The difference is that in a situation where all the ones that don't have that mutation die, ONLY those with the mutation will live on. However, when all the ones without it continue to live, those with the mutation will continue to be the minority, if they live at all.
You can be very insightful sometimes. However, in this case you are overthinking things.
Why is conciousness needed to explain this behavior? Why is mere reaction and the occasional genetic mutation not enough to explain it?
You state blindly that white blood cells are aware the host needs to survive for them to survive. That's not proper evidence. That's stating another unsupported hypothesis to "prove" your original unsupported hypothesis. What is the proof they actually know the body needs to survive for them to survive? Why is it not sufficient to say their behavior simply is to react to certain stimulus? What mechanism allows them to know and comprehend this? Bacteria, any single celled creature, have no known mechanism for storing memories. DNA is a pretty far fetched thing there. By that, the entire present universe is a massive "memory" of the past.
Once again, you are faced with the absurdity that to apply conciousness to creatures with no mechanism for being aware you must apply it to ALL things in the universe.
And your definition of conciousness sucks by the way. Try to define it in a way that is not self referential.
And, just so you know, the majority of the people at that board have actually majored in various fields of science, some of them in biology. Don't take lightly what they have to say, if you even bothered going there at all. The fact is, you are NOT properly representing the findings of science, and you seem to think it's because I have some fundamental issue with single celled creatures being concious? No! That would be an amazing discovery! However, nothing points to that! You just support your own arguments with made up stuff that itself is not supported by evidence!
"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)