NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
Let's talk a little about your absurdity of 'molecular intelligence'.
Molecules as such do not learn. There is no learning involved in the behavior of chemical elements nor molecules made from them. Sodium does not 'learn' how to bind to Chlorine.
DNA, as has been exhaustively point out to you, is a polymer, not a singular molecule.
But even DNA does not learn, not in any standard meaning of the term. Even the analogy is tenuous and ultimately distractive rather than helpful.
Yet 'learning' is one of the hallmarks of intelligence.
So by what reasoning to you assert that 'molecular intelligence' exists? It can't be because intelligence emerges out of the behavior of systems of molecules assembled as subsystems within larger systems, at varying scales. That's not 'molecular intelligence', that's "all intelligence is a feature of structures made up of molecules". The distinction is sharp, clear, meaningful, and entirely different from what you continue to assert.
It's the Stephen Hawking and "intelligence requires motor control" debacle all over again. You gave up on that and educed your first element of 'intelligence' to "well, of course there has to be a body" and abandoned the notion that it was anything other than a passive pre-requisite.
Otherwise, you'd be able to explain why and how Hawking's unquestionable intelligence is impacted by his almost total inability to exercise a 'system of control'.
You'd be able to handle the composition and recognition of new melodies.
You've got nothing but steaming heaps of failure, and you keep doubling down on it.
|
