|
Author
|
Topic: The Species’ Collective Brain?
|
William Brookfield
Member
Member # 565
|
posted 14. November 2002 18:29
The Species’Brain
Assuming that natural selection cannot in any reasonable manner account for the E-coli bacterial flagella then what could account for it? Intelligent design? Well yes, but the E-coli question is a specific question and “intelligent design” is a general answer.
As an ID *cosmologist* I believe that it is appropriate for me to suggest that “God did it.” This is because a universal answer (God or equivalent) is totally appropriate to the universal cosmological questions posed. In the field of biology however, I feel that more specific answers are needed for the specific ID questions that naturally arise.
Questions such as;
Who or what might specifically benefit from this flagella?
Who or what has the “R and D budget” to develop such a device?
Who or what has access to the delivery mechanism for such a device?
Who or what might be intelligent enough to produce such a device?
My feeling is that the prime suspect here has to be the species itself. I am therefore putting forward the hypothesis that species possess the ability to function collectively as "super-brains." While this trancendant collective brain model does indeed suffer from “the binding problem,” it is not the only brain model that suffers from this. While the “aliens did it” (ADI) hypothesis is indeed still alive, I feel the most scientific starting point is the “E-coli did it” (EDI) hypothesis.
Both ADI and EDI can exist as a subset of GDI and neither are a threat to Intelligent Design. They merely represent competing theories within ID science.
As I see it EDI is not a religious concept (unless of course if people start singing E-colimass carols and praising the virgin birth of the flagella).
William Brookfield
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Edington
Member
Member # 421
|
posted 14. November 2002 23:03
William,
an interesting concept, although you may be surprised (or maybe not) that others have developed similar ideas independently. Your ideas sound quite similar to so-called "Gaia" Theories as developed by Lovelock, Margulis and others.
Simply put it is suggested that the Earth itself is a living entity. Lovelock essentially describes the Earth as a kind of super-organism. This is not incredibly far-fetched considering that there is no clear definition of what life is to begin with.
Lovelock, J.E. 1979. Gala: A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford University Press.
Lovelock, J.E. 1991. Healing Gaia. Harmony Books.
Lovelock, J.E. 1992. A numerical model for biodiversity. Phil. Trails. R. Soc. Load. B 338: 383-391.
Margulis, L. and Sagan, D. 1997. Slanted Truths: Essays on Gaia, Evolution and Symbiosis. New York.
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 14. November 2002 23:59
William,
An interesting thought. On other boards the inherent intelligence of organisms has been used as evidence of intelligent design. Such intelligent design in which bacteria increase mutation rates in response to stress seem to be evidence of some inherent intelligence. Would such be attributable to intelligent design? It seems to me that such use of the term ID would close the gap between natural and intelligent design.
IP: Logged
|
|
Janitor@MIT
Member
Member # 125
|
posted 15. November 2002 14:31
I also am interested in the idea of the "collective intelligence" of evolving populations. But this involves a significant "binding problem," doesn't it? I would greatly appreciate any insights into how this problem might possibly be solved?
[I apologize to Mr. Moderator for being so brief and unoriginal, but I think the question is important and, if William Brookfield permits, I think its an important general question pertinent to the IDers "research program."]
IP: Logged
|
|
William Brookfield
Member
Member # 565
|
posted 16. November 2002 02:14
quote:
Your ideas sound quite similar to so-called "Gaia" Theories as developed by Lovelock, Margulis and others.
Hi Dan,
I am somewhat aware of the Lovelock, Margulis work but I am under the impression that while it provides some new ideas like symbiosis and planetary self regulation, it involves no fundamental change to the existing Darwinian paradigm. This obviously is not true for ID based science.
Hi Frances,
quote:
An interesting thought. On other boards the inherent intelligence of organisms has been used as evidence of intelligent design. Such intelligent design in which bacteria increase mutation rates in response to stress seem to be evidence of some inherent intelligence. Would such be attributable to intelligent design?
Possibly, but we would surely have to look more carefully at these experiments before drawing any conclusions.
What I am trying to do initially is find a testable model that follows as a logical consequence of ID science. I am also trying to surmise where ID science might be going. It seems to me that present ID science is leading to a kind of mega-biology in which we humans occupy a mere mid point position on the bio-cosmic intelligence ladder. That is to say, a successful ID science would relieve us of our present status(?) as the most conscious and intelligent beings in the known universe. Hopefully it would also fill in some details about our superiors.
quote:
It seems to me that such use of the term ID would close the gap between natural and intelligent design.
Yes it seems to me that an artificial distinction has been made between the words "natural" and the "supernatural." In terms of the whole species, a single member of the species would possesses a "fractional" amount of "intelligence" or "consciousness." This consciousness could be called "natural" because it is a part of nature, or "supernatural" because employs its inherent non-locality to beat the local "binding problem." The "non-fractional" super-intelligence of a species could similarly be referred to as either "natural" or "supernatural" and for the same reasons. My personal preference however is the word "natural."
As far as I am concerned, as long as there exist a scientific, logical or mathematical pathway to "God" then "God" is natural. I have found all three. As soon as I can get my work translated into PDF form I will submit it to ISCID.
quote:
>I also am interested in the idea of the "collective intelligence" of evolving populations. But this involves a significant "binding problem," doesn't it? I would greatly appreciate any insights into how this problem might possibly be solved?
Hello Janitor,
If consciousness is in fact quantum mechanically non-local then distance itself would present no basic obstacle. Assuming the non-local-species-being were intelligent enough, it could have constituents all over the universe. I am also thinking here that physical brains might be more of a physical interface than say a "seat of consciousness."
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic