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

by David Turell , Sunday, October 23, 2016, 19:18 (2732 days ago) @ dhw

.

dhw: 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,

No, my soul joins the universal consciousness in afterlife as an entity representing me. After all in NDE's God is in heaven with the souls, so I assume the UC/ heaven are the same.

dhw: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.

No, I manage my consciousness through the instrument of my brain, which receives consciousness for me to mold as myself. My brain is material managing a non-material consciousness

dhw: 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.

They are not wrong programs, but alternatives to use if necessary. Nothing pointless, but just like the gear shift on your car which allows you options for hills, speed, etc.

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

Not wrong, but inadequate for the stress.

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

I have read articles on alternative programs for change built into DNA with patterns that allow for mutations to more easily jump the gaps. Here is my previous entry:

Thursday, April 21, 2016, 01:52 (186 days ago) @ David Turell
This article takes from Andreas Wagner's work to show that evolution has amazing biochemical patterns to follow and this affects genes, and the search for new proteins in the landscape to fit new structures and functions, and it limits the number of functional RNA molecules to smaller number to be found in a search. It never wonders why this might be, and assumes it is all natural, while I see planning patterns to help evolution flow:

http://nautil.us/issue/20/creativity/the-strange-inevitability-of-evolution

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,

dhw: 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: 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.

dhw: 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?

I don't view guidelines as a list, but boundary constraints with nothing right or wrong, assuming patterns of change exist.