Joined: June 2006
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,12:45)|
|Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 16 2012,12:16)|
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,12:03)|
|Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 16 2012,11:16)|
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,10:22)|
|Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 16 2012,09:56)|
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,10:04)|
|Quote (sparc @ Nov. 15 2012,23:22)|
Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?
As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical. But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.
how do you measure these similarities? quantitatively, and not from the gut?
Best to model it (or conceptualize what that ends up looking right). You then have all of the variables of the algorithm(s) to monitor for comparisons. Also know for sure such things as whether new information from conjugation influenced its molecular or its cellular intelligence.
Depending on cell type there may be little or no conjugation. Where it has a centrosome we get an animal cell which can perform amazing feats, even form social-cell colonies called humans.
You're not answering the question(s). Before you can have a model that simulates something, you must have your variables defined, and in your case you must be able to measure the incremental development of "cellular intelligence." Because no one else on earth that I know of knows how to do this, and you've made assertions regarding development of "cellular intelligence" you must have also developed a rigorous and well-defined measurement system. BTW, "rigorous" in this context includes "well-tested," with the data to support the efficacy of the system. Otherwise, your model is completely useless.
Primary variables (for control, confidence, guess, memory) are in part defined by the terminology found in representative formula or metabolic pathway component name. That information is used in labeling circuit as shown in models/theory that has the same features regardless of how simple or complex the intelligence system is. Even a simple feedback circuit can be formed with the algorithm even though it is not intelligent, not all of the algorithm would be used. Where it turns out that it was more than a simple feedback network whatever new that was discovered has a place in algorithm, it's already there waiting for it and figuring where it no doubt belongs is not hard.
If this is an answer, can you please tell me what the question is? Give us the details of your measurement system and how it was tested.
This is what a standard measurement looks like:
Regardless of kind of intelligence, in this theory there is a line chart to show vital stats of the algorithm, along with representative circuit which can be drawn to help show how well it is working. That is all it needs.
I doubt you will find a comparable system anywhere else. This is not required in any other theory, where here it is really only a matter of simply showing the primary variables and circuit of the model on the screen.
This is not a rigorously defined and tested measurement system. There is no data. Measurement units have not been defined. There are other significant problems, but unless you solve those two, you've created an ugly mess that's supposed to represent a "theory."
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT