RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2015,23:47   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 01 2015,22:15)
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 01 2015,17:48)
As for the rest of it, your not-a-theory fails scientifically because you can't demonstrate most of your key claims, such as molecular intelligence,......

There is now a new branch of science called "molecular neuroscience":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......science

Those who need to infer that molecular neuroscientists believe that molecules have tiny neural brains with which to form intelligent bonds are likewise seen as just annoying nutcases looking for a problem where none exists. The fields are not even about what one molecule has, they're for studying systems that can easily involve trillions of molecules per neuron.

You are promoting a redefinition of standard terminology that only dimwits would even need. And I agree that there is nothing wrong with the current way the word "molecular" is supposed to be used as a descriptor. You are thus very on your own, and must deal with your semantic issues before the cause you to make an even bigger fool out of yourself with them.

I keep underestimating how clueless you are.

Yes, there is a field called molecular neuroscience.  It is new, but not brand new - the Journal of Molecular Neuroscience began publishing in 1989, and another journal called Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience began the following year.

I have no arguments with molecular or cellular neuroscience, but you and they are not on the same page at all.  

Molecular neuroscience is the branch of neuroscience that examines the biology of the nervous system with molecular biology, molecular genetics, protein chemistry, and related methodologies. Cellular neuroscience is the study of neurons at a cellular level including morphology and physiological properties.  Neither of them imply that cells or molecules have brains or nerves or are intelligent or that molecular neuroscientists would find anything to agree with in your rubbish.

From your Wikipedia source:  
Quote
Molecular neuroscience is a branch of neuroscience that observes concepts in molecular biology applied to the nervous systems of animals. The scope of this subject primarily pertains to a reductionist view of neuroscience, considering topics such as molecular neuroanatomy, mechanisms of molecular signaling in the nervous system, the effects of genetics on neuronal development, and the molecular basis for neuroplasticity and neurodegenerative diseases.
 

I'm sticking to standard definitions.  I'm willing to listen to a redefinition if you would provide one that was readable and which made sense, and you demonstrated why we need to change the way we think about intelligence, none of which you have accomplished.  There is nothing in that which supports your bizarre concepts of molecular intelligence.

  
  18634 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (622) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]