Thread: The secrets of intelligence lie within a single cell

Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer

Can you define "smart" or "intelligent" in a way that doesn't make neural networks "smarter" or more "intelligent" than single cells?

Just by looking in the dictionary*(.com) you can find definitions for smart and intelligence that would make cells much smarter (or more intelligent) than the network.

smart
–adjective
7.
quick or prompt in action.

in·tel·li·gent
2. displaying or characterized by quickness of understanding, sound thought, or good judgment.

A cell is much quicker to decide than an entire network. I, however, would say that networks are definitely more intelligent than single cells. In order to be "more intelligent" though, cells have to have the faculty of intelligence, no matter how small, to even be compared.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

smart
–adjective
7.
quick or prompt in action.

in·tel·li·gent
2. displaying or characterized by quickness of understanding, sound thought, or good judgment.

A cell is much quicker to decide than an entire network.

Even by your definition networks are more intelligent : Cells are orders of magnitude slower than neural networks.
Cellular events are chemical, they are reaction-diffusion systems. Neural activity mostly depends on electric signals being carried along neurons. This is much faster than diffusion.

Compare the time between receiving a signal, computing the response and responding to the signal:
In bacterial cells it takes between a second and a couple of minutes.
In yeasts it takes between couple of seconds and and hour.
In human cells it takes between couple of minutes and up to days.
Neural responses are measured in milliseconds.