Species consciousness and instinct. (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, October 23, 2013, 14:21 (4049 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Ants: you persist with your example of them finding the way, and refuse to consider the mantis example and the building of giant cities to house, shelter, rear and feed millions of inhabitants.-DAVID: I still consider this instinct built over centuries of development by systems we do not yet understand and aided by species consciousness.-We don't understand how ants can work out strategies to meet innumerable situations, but we can be quite sure they don't work out strategies to meet innumerable situations! As for their city-building, no doubt the skills and knowledge are passed from generation to generation, once they've been acquired (= innovation). Possibly taught, possibly passed on through "species consciousness" or memory. Prior to the invention of writing, we humans did things the same way.-DAVID: You are anthropomorphizing cells. Cells do not think. For the umpteenth time they work on information they have been given. -For the umpteenth time, I do not see cells as thinking like humans. All organisms, including your dog and you, work on information, some of which is inborn and some acquired. That doesn't mean the information has to be given to them by God, or that God has to preprogramme their responses.-DAVID: To quote Shapiro: (paraphrased in his words): A paradigm shift in our thinking about biologic evolution [requires] " a shift from thinking about gradual selection of localized random changes to sudden genome restructuring by sensory-influenced cell systems." Notice that Shapiro is saying that the cells are systematically organized to respond to sensory stimuli. -Of course they are. No cell community (organism) ... including us ... can adapt to a new environment without being sensually aware of it. And you and I have long since frowned on random changes.-DAVID: And further: [There are]" cognitive networks and cellular functions for self-modification [epigenetics]."-"Cognitive" entails acquiring and utilizing knowledge through understanding, learning, and even reasoning (even if not in the human way). First the information is acquired (senses) and then decisions are made (cognitive networks). There is nothing in this phrase that contradicts the concept of intelligence at work in the process of self-modification (innovation).
 
DAVID: "The emphasis is systemic rather than atomistic and information-based rather than stochastic."
 
Intelligent design, by God or by cells, has to be systemic and information-based and not stochastic. And once you have multicellular organisms, all the cell communities have to cooperate to bring about change. The intelligent cell concept also rejects stochastic randomness.-DAVID: Taken from his concluding paragraphs in his book. Note information based!!!Please read his book.-All invention has to be information based. You claim that God not only planted the information but also planted the decisions based on the information. My alternative is that cells over billions of years acquire information, and by combining their intelligences are able to take their own decisions. It remains open whether or not a god gave them that intelligence. I wish I had time to read all the books you recommend. As it is, I rely on you to provide the evidence for your own case and for your criticism of my alternatives. The evidence you have provided is, at the very best, ambiguous.-DAVID: I agree about NDE's and these transplant memories may have some validity if you consider species consciousness as a factor.
 
I don't understand your insistence that individual memories are dependent on species consciousness. What has the identity of a child murderer or a sudden change of sexual orientation got to do with species consciousness? Validation of transplant memories, as with NDEs, can only come about through confirmation of the information by independent third parties. This appears to have happened in certain cases of NDEs and heart transplants. -dhw: 90% of biochemists are against you, and I wonder how many of the remaining 10% favour the divine preprogramming of eukaryotes to produce all the innovations leading to humans.-DAVID: Silly strawman argument. I haven't been to a medical convention where biochemistry is presented in years, I have every right to my own interpretations.-Of course you have. And so do atheists and agnostics. That's why you and I keep talking (and I hope we'll go on talking)! I raise the argument because you insist that cellular intelligence runs contrary to the findings of biochemistry. I'm not convinced, and have pointed out that your own hypothesis has no backing from biochemists either. If you slug me, cowboy, I shall slug you back!-DAVID: 90% atheism is just human egotism, when these guys are so educated and accomplished they think they can out-think everything and solve everything without philosophy.-You don't seem to appreciate how difficult it is to believe in an eternal, infinite, unknown, unknowable, invisible, inexplicable power. For those of us who cannot conceive of such a power, it's only logical that we look for alternatives. This is not egotism, and I don't believe for one second that even 90% of atheists are so arrogant as to believe they will find all the answers. You shouldn't judge a set of people only by those who shout loudest.