3 ms·

Normally, 1) is enough. Explanatory power. E.g., evolution driven not by random mutations, but by self-modification of bacteria/cells, based on same engineering

Normally, 1) is enough. Explanatory power. E.g., evolution driven not by random mutations, but by self-modification of bacteria/cells, based on same engineering principles as we use in programming. There's a rational goal behind all this endeavor, we will get it sooner or later. The alternative is the admission of meaninglessness of everything and total depression (recurrent topic on HN)

pdonis 8y ago
Evolution does not require consciousness, so I have no idea why you think the hypothesis that bacteria are conscious has any "explanatory power".
- resource0x 8y ago
  Thank you for letting me know :)
vertexFarm 8y ago
Don't you see that you're projecting your own needs on the world around you? Physics isn't required to make you comfortable or happy. You aren't finding truth, you're just inventing reassuring delusions.
- resource0x 8y ago
  What is delusion and what is not is in the eye of the beholder until proven experimentally. Randomness is impossible to prove in principle, even for a sequence of 0 and 1, and you know it. But I see you are really interested in the topic :) There are things discovered in recent years that challenge the dogma. E.g. each neuron has its own DNA (like hardware that can rewire itself - not randomly, but for a purpose). Cells communicate using complex language through more than one communication channel. Look for "plant intelligence" on youtube (TED talks). BTW, the idea of single-cell consciousness is not mine - it's Hameroff's idea (derived from his practice of anesthesiology). Bacterial intelligence is an active area of research. The picture gradually emerges. But don't expect anyone to publish a coherent theory anytime soon - simply for fear, b/c for some reason, in US and western countries, any mention of intelligence is perceived as religious belief. But in fact, belief in human exceptionalism and intellectual superiority is a religious belief. My view is that humans are not that smart - we are just average among other species.

pdonis 8y ago

Evolution does not require consciousness, so I have no idea why you think the hypothesis that bacteria are conscious has any "explanatory power".

resource0x 8y ago
Thank you for letting me know :)

vertexFarm 8y ago

Don't you see that you're projecting your own needs on the world around you? Physics isn't required to make you comfortable or happy. You aren't finding truth, you're just inventing reassuring delusions.

resource0x 8y ago
What is delusion and what is not is in the eye of the beholder until proven experimentally. Randomness is impossible to prove in principle, even for a sequence of 0 and 1, and you know it. But I see you are really interested in the topic :) There are things discovered in recent years that challenge the dogma. E.g. each neuron has its own DNA (like hardware that can rewire itself - not randomly, but for a purpose). Cells communicate using complex language through more than one communication channel. Look for "plant intelligence" on youtube (TED talks). BTW, the idea of single-cell consciousness is not mine - it's Hameroff's idea (derived from his practice of anesthesiology). Bacterial intelligence is an active area of research. The picture gradually emerges. But don't expect anyone to publish a coherent theory anytime soon - simply for fear, b/c for some reason, in US and western countries, any mention of intelligence is perceived as religious belief. But in fact, belief in human exceptionalism and intellectual superiority is a religious belief. My view is that humans are not that smart - we are just average among other species.