N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 14 2015,15:39) | | Quote (Quack @ Aug. 14 2015,03:36) | | I just gotta know. Are all molecules intelligent? Or is that a property of some kind of molecules only? |
The only single molecule system that qualified as intelligent is self-replicating RNA. From theory:
| Quote | Unimolecular Intelligence
Clues to the origin of intelligent living things are found in rudimentary molecular systems such as self-replicating RNA. Since these are single macromolecules that can self-learn they are more precisely examples of “Unimolecular Intelligence”, as opposed to “Molecular Intelligence”, which may contain millions of molecules all working together as one.
REQUIREMENT #1 of 4 - SOMETHING TO CONTROL
The catalytic (chemically reacts with other molecules without itself changing to a new molecular species) ability of ribonucleotide (A,G,C,U) bases combine to form useful molecular machinery. Where properly combined into strands 100 or more bases in length they become a rapidly moving molecule that can control/catalyze other molecules in their environment, and each other, including to induce each others replication. Unlike RNA that exists inside a protective cell membrane these RNA's are directly influenced by the planetary environment, which they are free to control. Modern examples include viruses that over time learned how to control the internal environment of their host to self-assemble protective shells with sensors on the outside for detecting suitable host cells to enter and control. After invading the cells other sensors detect when conditions are right to simultaneously reproduce, thereby overwhelming the immune system of their hosts, which would otherwise detect then destroy them.
REQUIREMENT #2 of 4 – SENSORY ADDRESSED MEMORY
The ribonucleotide sequences are a memory system that also acts as its body. On it are molecular sites, which interact with nearby molecules to produce repeatable movements/actions. Its shape can include hairpin bends that are sensitive to the chemical environment, which in turn changes the action responses of its code/memory to nearby molecules, and to each other. Their activity also changes their molecular environment, much the same way as living things have over time changed the atmosphere and chemistry of our planet. This suggests self-organization of a complex collective molecular self-learning system involving diverse molecular systems, which both compete with and sustain each other.
REQUIREMENT #3 of 4 - CONFIDENCE TO GAUGE FAILURE AND SUCCESS
Molecular species that can successfully coexist with others in the population and the environmental changes they cause are successful responses, which stay in the collective memory. Molecular species that fail are soon replaced by another more successful (best guess) response. The overall process must result in collective actions/reactions that efficiently use and recycle the resources available to multiple molecular species, or else there is an unsustainable chemical reaction, which ends when the reactants have consumed each other, resulting in an environmental crash.
REQUIREMENT #4 of 4 - ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS
For such a rapidly replicating molecule RNA editing type mechanisms can become a significant source of guesses. Also, molecular affinity, which is in part measured by the hydropathy index, will favor assimilation of complimentary ribonucleotides. Where these are in limited abundance the next best fitting molecule may replace them, or cause other changes to its structure, which may work as well or better, for their descendants. This makes it possible for these complex molecules to automatically try something new, when necessary. |
| Quote (Quack @ Aug. 14 2015,03:36) | | Is there a demarcation somewhere, between intelligent and non-intelligent molecules? If so, what's the difference? |
The above shows how to properly qualify a system like this as intelligent. All four requirements must be met. Other sections of the theory go into more detail.
| Quote | | What is the source of "molecular intelligence"? It is a fact that molecules are different from atoms and have properties not inherited from the atoms they are made of. So what? |
There is no "source" the molecule itself is through trial and error able to "learn", which in turn makes it possible for them to "evolve". That is what makes self-replicating RNA's of such great interest to origin of life scientists. |
That was non-responsive on your part. I understand that you think it is a response, and no doubt it seems crystal clear to you, but to everyone except you that looks like a house of cards built from unsupported and likely unsupportable assertions.
Let's do this from the back-end. We are all in agreement that RNA is a fascinating polymeric molecule, and that it is of great interest in the origin of life. We agree that it has several amazing and crucial capabilities: 1) reproduction, acting as scaffold or template for more of itself or for DNA (albeit involving some other molecules in the process), 2) creating proteins (any three nucleotides 1n a line can grab one amino acid, & line it up, helping it link up with the next amino acid in line, thereby ultimately making a protein), 3) folding and linking to itself, similarly to the way two strands of DNA link to each other. It can either make useful structures, or actually be a useful structure. In these ways, RNA can act variously as template, scaffold, blueprint, catalyst, production tool, building material, and final product. In the process of self-replicating, it can fairly easily get changed in ways that can result in functionally different end-products. It can indeed indirectly influence its environment.
However, all of this is understandable in terms of standard (involuntary, materialistic, deterministic, unintelligent) biochemistry. "Intelligence" has not been shown to be involved in this process.
Some forms of RNA are more efficient and successful at replication than others. These go on to become more abundant (because they make more copies of themselves), while less successful versions are going to become less abundant. You are calling this process "learning", in quotes. Other people have used the same or similar language, but this is a metaphorical use of learning, and is not equivalent to what a child does when it learns something, or even what happens in machine-learning. It is in fact natural selection (which you unjustifiably dismiss elsewhere). So at best here you are simply renaming a prebiotic version of natural selection because you in your ignorance think you don't like natural selection.
You list four "requirements of intelligence". I think you mean "for" rather than "of", but also "requirements" is probably not the right word either. This is difficult to correct, in part because because there is no way to correct this in such a way that the final product is true and makes sense. We could evaluate this list of four as a) prerequisites for intelligence to exist (features that caused or permitted intelligence to evolve), b) diagnostic characteristics of intelligence that all must be present to allow us to identify intelligence when it happens, c) looser characteristics of intelligence that may or may not be present in various combinations when intelligence is in operation, or d) phenomena that intelligence needs when it operates. Your statement elsewhere that "All four requirements must be met" pretty clearly implies option B, but this is trivially and obviously wrong. As we have discussed endlessly, many obvious instances of intelligence lack various combinations of those four phenomena (dreaming, thinking up a plot line for a novel, recognizing a melody, mentally composing a symphony or visualizing a work of art, reminiscing about childhood, thinking about a loved one, etc., etc., etc.) Worse, some systems possess all those phenomena but are not intelligent by any definition: e.g. autofocus cameras and NEATO vacuum cleaners. So in short, a big problem here is that your four features are rubbish (and are not written well enough to understand unambiguously).
Let's go into them individually:
"Something to control". This is a horrible phrase. CO2 levels in the atmosphere control the pH of the ocean: does that make CO2 intelligent? If you mean that intelligence cannot exist without controlling something, that is obviously untrue - what's being controlled when someone dreams? Every possible material thing you can think of has controls - does that mean every possible material thing is required for intelligence to exist? I think you mean that intelligence controls things, but that's a standard behavior of intelligence, not a required property. If you mean that intelligence arose out of the need to control things, because exercising influence on the surrounding environment or situation increases likelihood of survival and reproductive success, so voluntary fine-tuning of responses to signals is inherently going to arise in living organisms, well, you haven't said that, and moreover it's inherent to standard evolutionary understanding. Yes, RNA and RNA products can control things, but they don't have to. Is an RNA molecule that does not control anything unintelligent until it finds something to control?
"Sensory addressed memory". First, intelligence can clearly exist without recourse to sensory addressed memory: put someone in an Lilly-type sensory isolation tank, and their mind does not stop working. In fact, some people use isolation tanks to enhance their creativity and to help think through problems. The evolution of intelligence surely required a system that remembers prior sensations and processes current sensations, but that's not what you have said. However, what you did say (about RNA responding to and influencing the environment) does not require or involve intelligence: this is all strictly materialistic, deterministic biochemistry with a dash of mathematics from population genetics.
"Confidence to gauge failure and success". This is also oddly expressed. If you don't have enough confidence in your decision then that act of deciding was not an instance of intelligence in action? That's probably not what you meant, but that's what your words say. You probably just mean a system that can gauge failure and success. If a new version of RNA or DNA aids self-replication more than the earlier version, it will become more abundant in subsequent generations, but that's chemistry and population biology, not intelligence. The evolution of intelligence undoubtedly went hand in hand with increasing ability to estimate failure or success correctly, but that's not what your words say, and moreover, human intelligence has clearly decoupled from acts of gauging success or failure. Michelangelo visualizing his his sculpture of David prior to putting mallet to marble undoubtedly involved confident estimation of which strikes would be successful, but Michelangelo daydreaming about spending the afternoon in bed with his model needn't have involved confidence or estimation of success at all.
"Ability to take a guess": Absolutely not, as far as you express this. Educated guesses do involve intelligence, but random selection of options does not. Increased rates of mutation in automatic response to various stressors is not making an educated guess, does not require or involve intelligence to initiate, the results are not processed by intelligence, and putting the results into effect is not rational or voluntary. A bacterium involved in tumbling behavior is not using intelligence to choose the next direction of tumble. Putting the results of a random choice to use in making further choices based on prior experience (i.e. learning from experience, putting prior experience to use) clearly does involve intelligence, but that is not what you have said. Also, again, not all acts of intelligence involve making guesses, and evolutionary adaptations are not intelligence in action, by any normal definition of intelligence.
So, you are asserting molecular intelligence, without an operational definition so that we know how to measure it, and without a regular definition, so we don't really know what you are talking about. You also don't provide any evidence that such a thing actually exists. "Molecular intelligence" is a combination of shiny words that you love, but which nobody else has been given a reason to accept. Also, again, various systems exist that meet all of your "requirements" without being intelligent (autofocus cameras, NEATO vacuum cleaners), so your concept fails. Your continual restatement of your pile of rubbish does not constitute answering criticisms and providing explanations. It's just failing to defend your stuff, because you are unable to do so.
Furthermore, your writing remains problematic and horrible on pretty much a sentence-to-sentence basis. For example, beginning with the first sentence:
| Quote | | The only single molecule system that qualified as intelligent is self-replicating RNA. From theory: |
"Qualifies", otherwise you appear to be suggesting "until something else came along". Also, "From theory" implies an uncontroversial reference to basic principles and standard understanding accepted by everybody, instead of "According to my views".
| Quote | | Since these are single macromolecules that can self-learn they are more precisely examples of “Unimolecular Intelligence”, as opposed to “Molecular Intelligence”, which may contain millions of molecules all working together as one. |
conflicts with | Quote | | This suggests self-organization of a complex collective molecular self-learning system involving diverse molecular systems, which both compete with and sustain each other. |
The second statement is more reasonable than the first: individual molecules are not "learning" - they are giving rise to subsequent generations of different molecules.
Moving on:
| Quote | | The catalytic (chemically reacts with other molecules without itself changing to a new molecular species) ability of ribonucleotide (A,G,C,U) bases combine to form useful molecular machinery. |
Rework all those annoying parenthicals and you will discover that your subject and verb are not in agreement. (The catalytic ability .... combine.) What does it combine with? Put AGCU after "bases" rather than in the middle of "ribonucleotide bases". "Useful" begs a teleological conclusion: use "functional". When the RNA bases are physically combining to form something (which is at times the case) then the RNA is indeed changing its form, so it is not always being a catalyst.
| Quote | | Where properly combined into strands 100 or more bases in length they become a rapidly moving molecule that can control/catalyze other molecules in their environment, and each other, including to induce each others replication. |
"Properly" is inappropriate. How on earth is RNA a "rapidly moving" molecule (unless it is in a system or fluid that is moving rapidly) - molecules can't move themselves. That should be "each other's ". "Including to induce"s is awkward.
| Quote | | Unlike RNA that exists inside a protective cell membrane these RNA's are directly influenced by the planetary environment, which they are free to control. |
"which they are free to control" should be something like "which they can in turn influence". "Free to" adds nothing, and if they are influenced then they are not free to do anything, and if the environment influences them then they do not control the environment. It's synergy or feedback or mutual interaction. Also, nucleic acids primarily influence the world only when they are inside cells, via actions at the cellular and organismic level, not when they are outside the cells.
| Quote | | Modern examples include viruses that over time learned how to control the internal environment of their host to self-assemble protective shells with sensors on the outside for detecting suitable host cells to enter and control. |
"And to assemble", or "by assembling"? If they are not the shells, then they are not self-assembling the cells (you put "self" in front of far too many words, because you think it sounds impressive and because it begs your conclusions). Viruses have not "learned", except metaphorically.
| Quote | | After invading the cells other sensors detect when conditions are right to simultaneously reproduce, thereby overwhelming the immune system of their hosts, which would otherwise detect then destroy them. |
SOME viruses can indeed lie dormant until conditions are suitable for reproduction, but many are just reproducing as fast as possible. Also, you are splitting an infinitive without good cause. The term "sensors" is in many cases an overstatement for simple biochemistry: for instance, Herpes simplex fuses with DNA in neurons, such as brain cells, and it reactivates upon even minor chromatin loosening with stress, although the chromatin compacts (becomes latent) when deprived of oxygen and nutrients. Also, because you are making an overly generalized assertion ("after invading"), you sound as though you are confusing clinical latency or incubation periods for actual viral latency.
|
