Species consciousness and instinct. (Introduction)

by David Turell , Wednesday, October 23, 2013, 15:45 (4049 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: 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.-To repeat my thoughts abot God and evolution, and straighten out your interpretation of them: God created life and evolution to end up with human beings. Why He chose this approach has no answer. He gave life extreme inventiveness in epigenetics. This is why we see so many strange and wonderful approaches to a multitude of different life styles. Thus He didn't design everything. He gave living organisms the ability to respond with unique answers.-> 
> dhw; 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.-Agreed
> 
> DAVID: And further: [There are]" cognitive networks and cellular functions for self-modification [epigenetics]."
> 
> dhw: "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).-My thought is that the cells use intelligent information, which removes the implication that cells themselves are intelligent. An analogy is we go to the library or Google to find intelligent information to use. Cells have no brains and their intelligent information is implanted, passed down through cell division, and gained in their past. Life is a continuous process. We are still part of the first cell! Think of it. That is how far back our genetic inheritance goes.
> 
> dhw: 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.-Not exactly if you have read the above.-> dhw: 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. -As above, God gave them the ability to sense information and some degree of epigenetic decision making, as part of the master plan genetic system.-
> DAVID: I agree about NDE's and these transplant memories may have some validity if you consider species consciousness as a factor.
> 
> dhw: I don't understand your insistence that individual memories are dependent on 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. -I can accept completely the fact of veridical NDE's. Hundreds have been reported. A wonderful one in Parnia's book: A young intern is forced to keep shocking a patient who keeps reverting to v. fib. ( a very fatal dysrhythmia) over several hours. The patient survives and tells the MD ," you thought, why are you doing this to me?" A reasonable thought for a young doctor, frightened of making a mistake one week out of medical school. "And then you ate my lunch"-Both were true observations from a comatose patient! The doctor years later is now a part of Parnia's research team, and you can understand why.-On the other hand these transplant memory stories are suggestive and require more documentation to reach the level we are at in NDE research. Both are highly suggestive of species consciousness, especially with the so-called NDE experts considering the brain as a radio receiver for consciousness. Parnia is very clear that consciousness can survive several hours of no brain function in isolated cases. Eben Alexander, the academic neurosurgeon's length of time was one week.
> 
> dhw: I raise the argument because you insist that cellular intelligence runs contrary to the findings of biochemistry. I'm not convinced.-Because you are confused by my interpretation that cells use intelligent informaton but they are not themselves intelligent. We differ in our interpretation of the concept of intelligence.
 
> dhw: 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.-Yes, you are a reasonable agnostic, not a slavering, panting polemicist like Dawkins. So you are like Nagel. Darwin is wrong, consciousness is the reason, and we must find a 'third way' but we don't know what it is, or that we can ever know. You are at the edge of the chasm and won't leap. That is your choice.
Hop onto the pickets and remain frustrated with no answers. None are provable. Adler says it is provable beyond a reasonable doubt and I accepted his approach. Accept the idea that no solution is absolutely provable and try on Adler.