Nano-intentionality and Molecular Autonomous Agents
by TechneIntrinsic intentionality and inherent goal-directedness of eukaryotic cells is defended by Tecumseh Fitch and minimal molecular autonomous agents are characterized in "On emergence, agency, and organization" (by Stuart Kauffman and Philip Clayton).
The "aboutness" and "goal-directedness" of eukaryotic cells and how it relates to nano-intentionality is defined as follows (p14):
The crucial pre-mental properties of a cell are that it 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.
It is argued that simple single-celled eukaryotes possess nano-intentionality and it is stressed that one of the abilities of a nano-intentional structure is its ability to rearrange its physical structure in response to environmental circumstances. An example of eukaryotic chemotaxis (sensory adaptation) in the amoeba and its ability to react to environmental signals and adapt to them by inducing structural changes was given, e.g. when seeking and ingesting food was given. Chemotaxis involves structural changes in response to environmental circumstances and it is not limited to eukaryotes as bacterial cells are also capable of chemotaxis. In this respect, bacterial cells would qualify since no other reason was provided for not including bacterial cells.
Kauffman and Clayton argue that the simple example of a bacteria that is able to swim up a glucose gradient is an example of an organism acting on its own behalf and they call such a system a "molecular autonomous agent". They continue to provide a tentative five part definition of a minimal molecular autonomous agent (p505):
Such a system should be able to
1) Reproduce with heritable variation.
2) Perform at least one work cycle.
3) Have boundaries such that it can be individuated naturally.
4) Engage in self-propagating work and constraint construction.
5) Be able to choose between at least two alternatives.
The earliest life forms emerged about 3000-3400 million years ago (ref) and were likely bacteria.
Many natural sciences aim to detect the actions and intentions of agents. A few of these include forensic science, archeology and SETI.
If it is accepted that bacteria qualify as nano-intentional molecular autonomous agents then it would seem evolutionary and molecular biology also falls squarely into the category of natural sciences concerned with detecting the actions and intentions and/or "nano-intentions" of agents over time, be it mental or pre-mental.
If "ID science" is defined as "detecting the actions and intentions and/or "pre-mental nano-intentions" of agents over time" does this mean evolutionary and molecular biology qualify as "ID science"? 
Also, if the outcome of a choice of an agent is viewed as artificial selection, does that imply artificial selection played a bigger role in the evolution of life than natural selection?
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Wow. Euykaryotes too!
I think there is good evidence for prokayotes:
Who are the mutiple designers
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 22, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Fascinating stuff, Techne. Good to see you and chunk contributing.
Comment by Bilbo — September 22, 2009 @ 12:57 pm
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:33 pm
http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/REPRINTS/2009/WG%20How%20the%20microbial%20world%20saved%20evolution%20MMBR%202009.pdf
If life is capable of:
Life is intelligent. The ability of make free, fallible choices is a definition of intelligence. One doesn’t even have to be conventionally religious to doubt that evolutionary innovation is the result of natural selection doing something to a collection of genetic accidents. That biology, for over a century, clung to RM&NS for the sole purpose of “defeating creationism” is an absurdity that will long be remembered.
Comment by Bert — September 22, 2009 @ 1:33 pm
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Intelligence is life! Darwin's theory of Natural Selection still holds true even today.
I wish that more people would actually understand what we are doing to our economy.
Un-Natural Selection Taking America by Storm.
Consider reading that article, it sheds some light on the situation.
See everyone soon!
Comment by Mitch Ngo — September 22, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Yes. By this definition, I think all of biology could be called "ID science". I'm not quite sure "ID science" in this sense would be limited to biology, actually.
But, of course, this kind of "ID science" has nothing to do with mainstream ID with its flagella and all that. There's no obvious reason to deny that the natural forces behind evolution exhibit "nano-intentions", so the structures mainstream ID says cannot be accomplished with existing explanations must require "intelligence" in some sense more significant than nano-intentions.
Comment by don provan — September 22, 2009 @ 2:36 pm
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Almost spilled my hot cocoa when I saw who authored this thread. Good to see you again (so to speak) Techne. I'll digest the contents of the blog with my cocoa and make a substantive comment later.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
September 22nd, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Given that a fully functioning brain develops from a zingle eukaryote (zygote), it is not unreasonable to suppose a single cell has the capacities comparable to an entire brain. After all, an entire brain proceeded from a single Eukaryote.
That was the argument by Lynn Helena Caporale. I'm sympathetic to her conclusion regarding the pontential sentience of a single cell.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 22, 2009 @ 5:10 pm
September 22nd, 2009 at 5:13 pm
From the Fitch link:
Fitch points out "the intrinsic goal-directedness inherent in the behaviour of living eukaryotic cells." A reformulation of the contention that the basic living structure of biological organisms functions in accordance with a telic paradigm.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
September 22nd, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Of course it's unreasonable. I can't believe you said that.
Comment by don provan — September 22, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
September 22nd, 2009 at 7:01 pm
See: Darwin in the Genome by biologist Lynn Helena Caporale.
Caporale is probably a naturalistic sort of front loader.
Caporale argues the genome itself behaves in a manner similar to a purposeful intelligent mechanism. A single zygote, afterall, creates an entire organism as complex as a mammal. By the standards of weak Artificial Intelligence (weak AI), I would argue a Eukaryote evidences intelligent behavior.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 22, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
September 22nd, 2009 at 8:21 pm
METHINKS ITS ENTIRELY REASONABLE, Sal.
Comment by computerist — September 22, 2009 @ 8:21 pm
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:42 am
Techne,
Just wanted to say welcome back. Missed your posts, and sure enough this one's damn interesting.
I don't know what to think of nano-intentionality – interesting thought! Teleology and formal/final causality though? Sure.
Comment by nullasalus — September 23, 2009 @ 1:42 am
September 23rd, 2009 at 2:56 am
Hi Don, looks like biology was "ID science" afterall
…
Hey Bradford, hope the cocoa was good
. I agree, organisms are teleological molecular autonommous agents.
Hi nullasalus, thanks.
Tecumseh argues that nano-intentionality is thoroughly materialistic and derived non-mysteriously through evolution. He refers to Dennett's argument that intentionality is derived via evolution as a result of natural selection and his Darwinian, Skinnerian, Popperian and Gregorian creatures. However, this argument seems incoherent and…. denied. So now we are stuck with nano-intentional critters and artificial selection running the show after the emergence of life and "ID biological sciences" trying to figure out how this happened…
Can be argued that way anyway
.
Comment by Techne — September 23, 2009 @ 2:56 am
September 23rd, 2009 at 9:55 am
Fitch writes exceedingly well. His paper is erudite and informative. What exactly has it to do with ID?
Comment by Alan Fox — September 23, 2009 @ 9:55 am
September 23rd, 2009 at 10:07 am
Alan Fox:
Fitch pointed out "the intrinsic goal-directedness inherent in the behaviour of living eukaryotic cells." The source of that remains unaccounted for by mainstream biology.
Comment by Bradford — September 23, 2009 @ 10:07 am
September 23rd, 2009 at 11:58 am
We already know some classic goal-directed behaviour in prokaryotes. E. coli maintain themselves in optimum nutrient concentration by their "tumble or swim" strategy. Purposefulness in motile organims is a given.
Much remains unaccounted for by mainstream biology, so what? They're working on it. This sounds like the usual "evolutionary theory can't account for X so ID wins by default", without ID offering any kind of explanation at all. Colour me unimpressed.
ETA White blood cells such as phagocytes. Purposeful? Hell, yes!
Comment by Alan Fox — September 23, 2009 @ 11:58 am
September 23rd, 2009 at 12:22 pm
The de facto default lies in favor of non-telic assumptions. There is no point to default assumptions but there is a reason to maintain an open mind when experimental outcomes are not conceptually directing.
Comment by Bradford — September 23, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
September 23rd, 2009 at 12:33 pm
That comment is zen-like in its clarity! Could you demystify it for me.
Comment by Alan Fox — September 23, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
September 23rd, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Very simple. Keep an open mind because you lack empirical support for your beliefs.
Comment by Bradford — September 23, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
September 23rd, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Alan:
It's not chemotaxis per se, but the ability to move purposefully by rearranging body form. Bacteria are not capable of rearranging their external structure, AFAIK
It would be interesting to do a study with respect to which behavior and which trait, to see if this "cognition" had a bigger role in it's evolution than selection.
Comment by Guts — September 23, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
September 23rd, 2009 at 12:46 pm
If the oak tree is a hundred feet tall, can we avoid considering that the acorn is also a hundred feet tall in some sense, since it carries the information that, in the proper contex, develops into a hundred foot tall oak tree?
Hint: The answer is "Yes, we can and should avoid considering the acord a hundred feet tall."
If we look, we'd expect to see nothing but brainless, natural chemical and physical processes the whole way from zygote to human. We have a reasonably accurate picture of exactly how it works. If you showed some part of the process that suggested intelligence, that would be another matter, but it is simply illogical to assume the process involves intelligence simply because the result is intelligent.
Comment by don provan — September 23, 2009 @ 12:46 pm
September 23rd, 2009 at 12:50 pm
All designed processes are mediated by what could be termed brainless chemical or physical processes. Pointing this out is a vacuous exercise.
It's not simply the results. It's the mechanisms which generate the results.
Comment by Bradford — September 23, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Information and intelligence are not measured in terms of feet.
You are confusing concepts.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 23, 2009 @ 1:02 pm
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:09 pm
You assume it was a designed process.
Where? The arguments I'm reading, both Sal's original statement and the statement he quoted, seem to say that it is, in fact, simply the results from which they draw their conclusion. If they showed something in the mechanisms which suggested intelligence, this would be a very different conversation.
Comment by don provan — September 23, 2009 @ 1:09 pm
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Salvador:
Those capacities include a genetic blueprint containing all the information needed to generate a fully functional brain.
Comment by Bradford — September 23, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:32 pm
I don't have to assume it to know that the intellectual quality of mediating physical processes does not mitigate against a claim of design.
Comment by Bradford — September 23, 2009 @ 1:32 pm
September 23rd, 2009 at 2:16 pm
This is a very good example of an "expert system", and "expert system" is considered an instance of Weak AI.
A factory that can create something as complex as a human brain in diverse environments could be considered to be an expert system. A single eukaryotic zygote from which the human brain proceeds can therefore be considred and expert system, hence a single eukaryote might be considered to be "intelligent" in that instance. If so, then we can ponder whether other Eukaryotes are intelligent.
Given that James Shapiro thinks Prokaryotes are intelligent, it seems reasonable to suppose Eukaryotes are intelligent as well.
The advocates of AI don't generally deal with whether an intelligence is necessarily consious or not. If they believe intelligence is purely mechanistic, then it doesn't matter whether the intelligence is a pure machine like a computer or sortware. So even under the presumption that AI is an example of a non-sentient intelligence, then Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes and human made automated factories can be argued to evidence some form of intelligent behavior.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 23, 2009 @ 2:16 pm
September 23rd, 2009 at 7:15 pm
All that nano-stuff and bacteria are intelligent is really cool. [Rock says as if he actually read the paper. LOL]
But from what Smith writes the only way I “know” my intentionality is underived is by philosophical fiat: “As a biologist I accept without argument the "naturalist" position – as argued by Dennett, (Millikan, 1987) and many others – that intentionality of all sorts is ultimately the result of evolution via natural selection.”
Around here, amongst IDers, I am guessing, there is little sympathy for the idea that there is no truly “intrinsic” or “underived” intentionality.
Comment by Rock — September 23, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
September 23rd, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Re: "This remarkable series of observations requires us to revise basic ideas about biological information processing and recognize that even the smallest cells are sentient beings."
I cannot find a quote, but this has been the standard buddhist abhidharmic line for over two millenia. Nice for me to know that there is some contemporary scientific confirmation.
Re: goal/purpose/telic orientation: I think two simpler terms are 'intention' or 'motivation'. Perhaps there is no substantive difference between 'his purpose is to live and thrive' and 'his motivation/intention is to live and thrive' but I find 'purpose' tends to point towards some sort of conscious or concept-based goal, i.e. there is a target in mind. Rather, I think, we are dealing with process. Small point.
Nano-intentionality is a cute term. But I think it is a little unfortunate because as someone mentioned above, intelligence is not measured by feet/size. Organismically speaking, as I have posited before, I believe it is that faculty that allows/promotes organisms to navigate through spacetime.
Furthermore, I think some of the confusion derives from conventional English's lack of detailed terms for the manifold aspects of intelligence, with even such terms as we have being rather vague in that one often overlaps or approximates another (intellect, cognition, mind, awareness, intelligence, consciousness, thought etc.).
Here I think part of the problem is a general tendency to confuse 'intelligence' with 'conscious mind', or self-awareness, which is clearly a higher function that in our experience only humans and a few intelligent animals seem to possess. In this regard, I think it is a mistake to regard many of the sub-conscious processes in the so-called body as being purely chemical or hormonal, i.e. stimulus-response based mechanical reactions. Just as with the bacteria, so also with organ functions.
The digestive system, for example, prepares a suitable mix in the stomach for initial digestion based on the analysis provided from the tongue and nose whilst the food is being chewed. Then the extensive actual digestion process in the small intestine involves no end of endlessly subtle analyses, additions, subtractions, extractions, rejections, absorptions, further alterations and so forth. Not to mention how most of the major viscera are clearly involved in what we call 'emotions' which are obviously linked with intelligence on some level and also with how our 'organism' is doing in its navigational mission through spacetime, aka rush hour downtown entering the highway with large truck in front and behind.
We tend not to view this sort of primeval intelligence as intelligence. I think it is just a 'lower' or perhaps more 'physical' level. But it is not lesser. Not the conscious intellect of the greatest genius in the world is as intelligent, on some level, as the humble bacteria – or at least one could say that intelligence on the conscious level, though 'higher', would not be able to handle moving up the sugar slope in a bacterial body, nor manage the various chemical, hormonal and emotional functions of the human viscera and related systems.
Intelligence needs a re-think.
Comment by ash — September 23, 2009 @ 9:14 pm
September 24th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
We were talking about the zygote being intelligent, not "a claim of design".
Comment by don provan — September 24, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
September 25th, 2009 at 3:29 am
Alan:
Materialism vs ID and Aristotelian-Thomistic (A-T) traditions, oil vs water, materialistic explanations of goal-directedness vs "aboutness" and intentionality (nano or otherwise). Sure there is a connection somewhere don't you think?
I think nano-intentionality can be incorporated into an A-T framework.
Interesting blog post.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/09/teleology-revisited.html
Proto-intentionality vs nano-intentionality?
Comment by Techne — September 25, 2009 @ 3:29 am
September 26th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
How about enzymes Alan? Is purposefulness in enzymes also a given? How about ribosomes? Transfer proteins?
Comment by Daniel Smith — September 26, 2009 @ 1:54 pm
September 27th, 2009 at 2:36 am
[...] returned to Telic Thoughts to post this entry. I enjoy his posts and comments. There was a link in the OP to Nano-Intentionality – A Defense [...]
Pingback by On Intrinsic Intentionality | Health News — September 27, 2009 @ 2:36 am