Do our cells care?

[Pinball1970]

you put your hand on a hot stove burner, you immediately react by pulling it back without any thought processing whatsoever

You have no understanding whatsoever of the human CNS.

Even a baby will display this thoughtless cognitive reaction

"Even a baby" has a CNS, which has a brain, neurons, neurotransmitters, etc.

You have no idea how the human body works.

 

[Sarkus]

That is an interesting example of static activity, even though you still can’t seem to understand there is a difference between living and non-living cells.

I do understand that there is a difference, thanks. Do you? At least, do you without begging the question?

The substances in question are designed (by human beings) to recognize specific pre-known potential breakdowns in the substance and to repair it. But, if something destructive occurs that is not within that narrow range of predictable breakdowns, the substance is 100 percent toast. Not so with living cells which can repair unexpected problems.

This is just a matter of complexity, not activity.

The point is that non-living materials can repair themselves. That defeats your argument that self-repair is somehow an indication of cells being different. If you want to argue that the complexity of what cells can do, the level of repair that they can carry out, is significant, then make that argument. Don't make it about the fundamental activity, but about the complexity.

Because every time you use an example of an activity, then if, even in a basic way, it can be carried out by a non-living system, then your argument that relies on that activity is so weak as to be practically non-existent.

 

[Concordicus]

Because every time you use an example of an activity, then if, even in a basic way, it can be carried out by a non-living system, then your argument that relies on that activity is so weak as to be practical

Except that I am able to explain to you how the not living stuff accomplishes what it has been designed to do while you have no proven explanation of how living things are capable of adapting and dealing with an ever changing environment. Dead stuff cannot adapt; living stuff can.

 

[Pinball1970]

Except that I am able to explain to you

Biology? You don't understand it.

what it has been designed to do

"Evolved" to do.

no proven explanation of how living things are capable of adapting and dealing with an ever changing environment.

Wrong, the mountain of evidence regarding Evolution.

Dead stuff cannot adapt; living stuff can.

Pretty certain you have no idea about living and non living.

 

[Sarkus]

Except that I am able to explain to you how the not living stuff accomplishes what it has been designed to do while you have no proven explanation of how living things are capable of adapting and dealing with an ever changing environment. Dead stuff cannot adapt; living stuff can.

I don't need to explain how life manages it. It is enough to know that there are non-living things that can do it, even if they've been specifically built to do so. The rest, until you show otherwise, can most reasonably be put down to complexity, as - and correct me if I'm wrong - you seem to be disputing that complexity is sufficient to allow for it? The alternative is that there is something more than just complexity. And you haven't shown that in anything you've argued thus far.

 

[exchemist]

Except that I am able to explain to you how the not living stuff accomplishes what it has been designed to do while you have no proven explanation of how living things are capable of adapting and dealing with an ever changing environment. Dead stuff cannot adapt; living stuff can.

But this is demonstrably wrong, surely? We do understand many mechanisms by which cells respond to stimuli, we do understand how tissues respond to injury, etc. And these explanations are biochemical in nature. There is no need to invoke "cognition".

 

[Pinball1970]

But this is demonstrably wrong, surely? We do understand many mechanism by which cells respond to stimuli, we do understand how tissues respond to injury, etc. And these explanation are biochemical in nature. There is no need to invoke "cognition".

Is this poster going to acknowledge any of these points? Where he has been shown to be demonstrably wrong?

 

[DaveC426913]

Is this poster going to acknowledge any of these points?

I am finding it frustrating that the OP talks in rhetoric and rarely seems to defend their beliefs with facts.

Where he has been shown to be demonstrably wrong?

The OP is demonstrably wrong when they say "...you have no proven explanation of how living things are capable of adapting and dealing with an ever changing environment..."

We understand this quite well.

The OP's problem is that they keep assuming complex behaviour requires cognition.

 

[Pinball1970]

I am finding it frustrating that the OP talks in rhetoric and rarely seems to defend their beliefs with facts.


The OP is demonstrably wrong when they say "...you have no proven explanation of how living things are capable of adapting and dealing with an ever changing environment..."

We understand this quite well.

The OP's problem is that they keep assuming complex behaviour requires cognition.

Well this is not his echo chamber or his personal blog.

 

[Pinball1970]

Except that I am able to explain to you how the not living stuff accomplishes what it has been designed to do while you have no proven explanation of how living things are capable of adapting and dealing with an ever changing environment. Dead stuff cannot adapt; living stuff can.

Are you going to address the points we have raised? By people who actually know what they are talking about or not?
This is a forum NOT your blog. Address the points.

 

[DaveC426913]

Well this is not his echo chamber or his personal blog.

Me, on page 5:

What you want is not a discussion forum; what you want is a blog where you can say whatever fanciful things pop into your head and no-one will challenge you because you've turned off commenting.