Agency and Intentionality in Nature

Phronesis said:
1) Could you give your definition of "mind"?
2) Can you say why mind is limited to certain organisms?

Right, so no serious objections to the following definitions. All subsequent discussions are going to centre around them.
Molecular autonomous agent: "a system that is able to act on its own behalf"


Nano-intentionality: Crucial pre-mental properties of a cell that can
1) respond to (somewhat) novel circumstances, eventualities for which it is not specifically-prepared by the evolutionary "memory" instantiated in its DNA.
2) discover, through an individual process of trial and error, some "adaptive" (in the physiological sense) response or solution.
3) in various ways incorporate the results of this discovery into its own structure, thus "recording" or "remembering" (in a non-mental sense) this past, individual history.




I don't know why you should boast about your dishonesty. You agreed to remove a******s from your post because other people have received warnings for posting it. You did in fact change it. And you did in fact change it back. Sneaky and dishonest and then you came with the bogus idea that you had some sort of deal. Another lie. You removed it and we had no deal because other people have received warnings for it, yet you continue to post it. I don't know why the MOD only removed the first instance. Did you put it back again?
Click to expand...

When you have something new or interesting let me know. Your biomolecular machine is stuck on "repeat". It's boring.
 
Agency is the ability to make choice. Agency requires that there is a someone doing the choosing. In a materialist view there can be no "someone" without accepting determinism, which in turn by definition excludes agency.
 
rwenzori said:
When you have something new or interesting let me know. Your biomolecular machine is stuck on "repeat". It's boring.
Click to expand...
I can understand completely why it would bore you. No need to make it public though...

I think it is fascinating to know how molecular machinery work and it is also crucial to understand how certain diseases can be overcome. It is also fascinating to learn that every last bit of our being is controlled biochemically by highly optimal molecular machines and codes that functionally work together to preserve OUR existence. You might think it is boring or "**** happens", scientists in general don't find it boring and only the most close-minded materialists think it is "**** that happens for no reason" and you seem to be the only one on myBB ;). Only a select few who seem to want to project materialistic agendas seem to believe that. Too bad materialistic logic defaults on its own merit :D.
 
Last edited:
dappled said:
Agency is the ability to make choice. Agency requires that there is a someone doing the choosing. In a materialist view there can be no "someone" without accepting determinism, which in turn by definition excludes agency.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily at all. Maybe search a bit, and read around the topic. Even one of TelePhrone's faves, Dennett, would disagree.
 
Communication. Present in the simplest examples of molecular autonomous agents in nature.... bacteria.

Sweet Talking: Artificial Vesicles And Bacterial Cells Communicate By Way Of Sugar Components
ScienceDaily (June 10, 2008) — For an organism to develop and function, the individual cells must exchange information, or communicate, with each other. Is it possible to learn their language and “talk to” the cells? Yes it is: Cameron Alexander and George Pasparakis at the University of Nottingham (UK) have been able to facilitate a conversation between bacterial cells and artificial polymer vesicles. In the journal Angewandte Chemie they report that this first communication occurred by way of sugar groups on the vesicle surface. The vesicles subsequently transfer information to the cells—in the form of dye molecules
Click to expand...

080605105207.jpg

The British scientists took an interesting route to learn more about the "language" of cells: they constructed vesicles, tiny capsules whose outer shell is made of special polymer building blocks. Their special trick: the polymer chains are equipped with side chains bearing glucose units that wind up being exposed on the vesicle surface. (Credit: Copyright Wiley-VCH)​
 
Phronesis said:
Communication. Present in the simplest examples of molecular autonomous agents in nature.... bacteria.

Sweet Talking: Artificial Vesicles And Bacterial Cells Communicate By Way Of Sugar Components


080605105207.jpg

The British scientists took an interesting route to learn more about the "language" of cells: they constructed vesicles, tiny capsules whose outer shell is made of special polymer building blocks. Their special trick: the polymer chains are equipped with side chains bearing glucose units that wind up being exposed on the vesicle surface. (Credit: Copyright Wiley-VCH)​
Click to expand...

Isn't basic chemistry powerful stuff!

Don't lose track of all those double-quotes there TelePhrone - they signify metaphors, not Bebeh Jebus! ;)
 
rwenzori said:
Isn't basic chemistry powerful stuff!
Click to expand...
ROFL!!! Looks like you have been reduced to repeating your BS mantra (just chemistry :eek:). Got anything scientific to discuss?. Mmmm, beginning to think you hate science...

PS, please go and defend your illogical eliminative materialism somewhere else. You seem to be the only one to hold that it is even logical. Not even you toadies agree with you ROFL. :D
 
Last edited:
Phronesis said:
ROFL!!! Looks like you have been reduced to repeating your BS mantra (just chemistry :eek:). Got anything scientific to discuss?. Mmmm, beginning to think you hate science...

PS, please go and defend your illogical eliminative materialism somewhere else. You seem to be the only one to hold that it is even logical. Not even you toadies agree with you ROFL. :D
Click to expand...

Hate science? My now you are flying a kite LOL! Maybe an intentional one??? :p:p

No need to play straw man on me old boy. I will admit that there are no ghosts in the machines though LOL!

Now, instead of playing with your little straw men and ad hominems, why not direct your energies at logically refuting the criticisms of your points I post. You seem quite incapable of doing so - must be a lack of understanding I suppose. And, no, mere repetition of your original quote mining doesn't count. :p
 
Phronesis said:
Waiting for your expert definition of agency ....



You come to a conclusion without even reading the paper? If you have read the paper, please quote what is written on page 508 to give an inclination that you have ;).

All described in the article if you have read it ;). Have you? Or are you making bogus conclusions out of ignorance again?
Click to expand...

I'm somewhat curious as to why this thread got bumped with a reply that belongs in another thread.

Smacks of intention.....a familer one.
 
alloytoo said:
I'm somewhat curious as to why this thread got bumped with a reply that belongs in another thread.

Smacks of intention.....a familer one.
Click to expand...

Yes - someone ( I can't guess who! ) bleated to the mods and our replies got moved into this thread (that has nothing to do with science and belongs in PD).
:eek:
 
Phronesis said:
You're not stupid either, so stop trying to stall a discussion.
Click to expand...

I know you won't understand, but the irony of this statement is delicious.


No it is not. Intentionality was mentioned in the title.
Click to expand...

Stunning logic

Plenty of examples can be given of human intentionality. However, since intentionality is limited to humans,
Click to expand...

Patently false.

Just rattle a dog's dishes to see how false this is.
 
rwenzori said:
Yes - someone ( I can't guess who! ) bleated to the mods and our replies got moved into this thread (that has nothing to do with science and belongs in PD).
:eek:
Click to expand...

Highly unethical IMHO.

Intentionality is a philosphophical concept. It's not natural science.
 
rwenzori said:
why not direct your energies at logically refuting the criticisms of your points I post.
Click to expand...
You had a point? You had valid criticisms? ROFL, why don't you go and defend eliminative materialism... your mantra..
alloytoo said:
Patently false.

Just rattle a dog's dishes to see how false this is.
Click to expand...
ROFL, just poke a cell then to see how stunningly false rwenzori is.

You two should debate each other, that would be hilarious! :D
 
Last edited:
Phronesis said:
ROFL, just poke a cell then to see how stunningly false rwenzori is.

You two should debate each other, that would be hilarious! :D
Click to expand...

We've repeatedly had to demonstrate the difference between a "cell" and a living concious being, and how intentionality (as a concept cannot apply as cellular level.)

This btw is precisely why the term "Nano-intentionality" was coined.

The terms are not indiscriminantly interchangable.

The fact that about half a dozen people have corrected you on this issue leads me to ask:

Are you just stupid?

or

Deliberately obfuscating the subject matter?
 
ROFL, more moaning because your obvious inconsistency is laid bare. Move along now.
 
Phronesis said:
ROFL, more moaning because your obvious inconsistency is laid bare. Move along now.
Click to expand...

It's useful to have meaning when you assert something.

(difficult I know when you repeat everything ad nausea)


Do you know the difference between a dog (or cat, or parrot) and a single cell within these creatures, and how intentionality (not nano-intentionality) pertains to both?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X