Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them? (Animals)

by David Turell , Wednesday, December 09, 2015, 15:45 (3271 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: No, I've agreed they might have an onboard inventive mechanism.
> 
> dhw: But you have never agreed that the mechanism might be autonomous. That is why you like to have your God “guiding” the weaverbird, the wasp and the monarch. If God does the guiding, the inventive mechanism is not inventive.-I'll try explaining my version of semi-autonomous again: the organism invents a modificiation which is allowed by onboard restrictions instructions. Basically, " you an try this but not that".
> DAVID: It's funny but the ID scientists haven't cracked either.
> 
> dhw: I really don't know what this has to do with ID. -Because I follow their theories and am in agreement with them and I present it here.- 
> Xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> BBELLA: It would seem to me that no matter how many different kinds of rocks (and how did they become different kinds in the first place) joined together for eternity, rocks could not create an intelligent human unless there was already intelligence at work in the process - from the beginning (?), always.
> dhw: See above. Not rocks. All the non-living substances that eventually combined to make the first cells. 
> DAVID: I'm with Bbella. Non-living substances could not make life without intelligence leading the way.
> 
> dhw: But BBella is not with you, as she does not view “intelligence” as a single, self-aware mind that created ATI. However, she and I are still discussing what is meant by “intelligence” in her concept of ATI. -My agreement with her is simply that intelligence is required to create our reality. We can all debate the type and source of it, but intelligence is required.