Intelligence & Evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, October 14, 2013, 16:20 (4057 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Prefer what you wish, but I am discussing the different types of conscious beings. Human consciousness involve self awareness and analytic thought. My dog, or chimps, are conscious and have a slight degree of consciousness in that they can do some simple future planning. My dog brings a ball. He is planning to play. There is a vast difference.-Of course there is a vast difference. And I have no doubt there is a vast difference between a bacterium and your dog. And that is the point I am making. There are different levels and degrees of consciousness/intelligence. But at least you have now withdrawn your claim that only humans can claim to be conscious. Thank you.-dhw: I can only assume you now acknowledge that there are different types of consciousness. Presumably, then, you will accept that an organism which is capable of absorbing, processing, assessing and exchanging information, communicating with other organisms, making decisions and solving problems is conscious, though its consciousness is different from ours and does not involve self-awareness, formulating new theories, or abstract thinking like that of Higgs.
 
DAVID: I'll agree with that statement. For organisms, not for single cells or groups of cells. -But organisms ARE groups of cells. And just as you believe consciousness emerges from the cooperation of billions of cells that make up the brain, I am suggesting that innovations may emerge from similarly cooperating cells. The whole is greater than the parts. There is not one of the attributes listed above that cannot be applied both to your dog and to cells, individually and in groups.-dhw: According to your own hypothesis, God preprogrammed every innovation, every decision, into the very first organisms, and perhaps even every environmental change (apart from the occasional dabble), and magically the cells automatically logged onto precisely the right programme (out of billions) at the right time to create legs, lungs and livers. How credible is this?
DAVID: If you accept theistic evolution, as I do, then it is credible for me. You have your fence.-Yes of course it's credible for you, just as chance combinations creating life and innovations are credible to an atheist evolutionist, and an intelligent cell is credible to scientists like Margulis and Albrecht-Buehler. I'm afraid the fact that you believe your theory does not give you the authority to dismiss other theories as poppycock.
 
dhw: I'm glad you find reasonable the suggestion that he is present in every cell, and therefore the cell is intelligent because its intelligence IS God. Clearly then you are not opposed to the concept in principle, so long as we put God in there.-DAVID: God has to be there. -Then the cell is intelligent after all, so long as we call its intelligence "God" and not "intelligence".