Different in degree or kind: Sapiens begin brain use (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, October 23, 2016, 08:11 (2734 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I agree, my 'I' and my consciousness are inseparable.
dhw: How can consciousness be managed by the brain if the consciousness that contains your “self” survives the death of the brain?
DAVID: Why not? Our brain is an instrument under our control which receives and manages the consciousness, shapes its knowledge and experiences and sense of self, and when the brain dies, the consciousness returns to the universal consciousness.

I always thought you believed you would retain your identity in your afterlife, as NDE patients do. If you do not, and your consciousness is merely a blank blob of God’s with no identity of its own, and if you believe your brain actually manages your consciousness instead of the other way round, and shapes your whole identity (what else does this comprise if not your knowledge, experiences and sense of self?), you might just as well call yourself a materialist.

dhw: The only guidelines you have come up with are limitations, but these do not explain what an organism CAN do; they only tell us what an organism can’t do. You have previously mentioned God giving organisms a multichoice list, with the organism free to choose, and bad luck if it got the answer wrong. That would mean that God not only provided the first cells with programmes for every innovation and natural wonder in life’s history, but also got them to pass on multiple wrong programmes as well.
DAVID: You have forgotten that 'bad luck' (per Raup) was truly just that. The organisms that went extinct were the results of catastrophic events not poor design.

My point is not ”bad luck” but the sheer pointlessness of your God giving organisms a load of wrong programmes plus one right one to choose from.

dhw: I hope that idea has gone into the bin now. What other guidelines can you think of that might enable us to call the inventive mechanism inventive as opposed to automatic?
DAVID:That is your hope, not mine.

Any idea WHY your God would provide all these wrong choices, then? And what other guidelines can you think of?

The two “Revisiting convergence” posts (thank you for both) raise the same problem:
David’s comment: A clear example of plant convergence. Might this come from guidelines in an inventive mechanism.

Convergent evolution suggests that different organisms find similar solutions to similar problems. Again: what guidelines other than those listed above?

David’s comment: What is missing from our knowledge of genetics is how a code change translates to actual phenotype. The gene is identified as cause, we see the effect, but none of the process inbetween. It is a huge black box. This indicates that the code has several pathways to a successful result, which makes it easier for evolution to progress to better adaptations. This is an equivalent finding that fits dhw's thought about organism's ability to invent.

I would drop your “several pathways” and settle for a “variable” (as below) or “flexible” code. And I would suggest that in the countless millions of convergences and divergences, resulting in the countless millions of varieties, species and natural wonders, the code is changed by the cell community itself, instead of every single right and wrong programme having been placed in the very first cells, or personally changed by God’s dabbling.

DAVID: I think God made the code with this variability which lead to comparable but not exactly the same results of adaptation.

I am happy to acknowledge the possibility that your God made the variable code and the (hypothetical) intelligence that is able to change the code.

DAVID: It is the same concept as individual variability allowing for adaptation and survival in the bacteria/ antibiotic challenge study previously discussed. Less rigid constraints in the mechanisms. With similar effective results, this is how I view my concept of guidelines may work.

Again, what guidelines, apart from the limitations of what an organism can/can’t do and every organism being given a list of right and wrong things to try?