Explaining natural wonders (Animals)

by dhw, Saturday, May 06, 2017, 10:40 (2757 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You are able to get “inside” yourself, but you are not able to get “inside” me let alone “inside” bacteria. You and I can communicate, but bacteria also communicate, and we know that they can and do change course. They may well “explain” to one another what they are going to do, though they won't analyse it like humans, because they are – in my view as in yours – highly unlikely to be as self-aware as we are. In any case, the fact that you can explain why you do something does not mean that your explanation is correct. You may THINK you know, but there may be causes you are unaware of. That is the whole basis of determinism. Of course bacteria can’t tell US anything, any more than we can tell THEM anything. We can also “be fully automatic” in our responses, and indeed much of the time we are. But when we have to take decisions, we think our responses are not automatic, so why assume that THEIR decisions are automatic, especially bearing in mind that many of them die before they solve new problems? In short, every point you make about bacteria can be applied to humans.

DAVID: I agree solipsism is a problem, but I am inside me and I know when and why I change course or respond.

Correction: you certainly know when, but you cannot be sure that you know why, because you cannot know the complete chain of cause and effect.

DAVID: I understand that I am using my control of a biologic computer to experience these facts. You are using the Romansh materialistic argument about our brains. I simply don't buy any of it.

Romansh’s argument was cause and effect, but the materialism of our brains is indeed part of the determinist case. Let me emphasize that I am not taking sides in the free will debate (I offered a detailed counter to Romansh’s argument). I am simply pointing out that all your OWN arguments concerning bacterial automaticity can be equally applied to humans. I am fully aware that you believe you are autonomously intelligent and bacteria are not and you "don't buy" any arguments to the contrary!

DAVID: Bacterial responses may appear intelligently directed, and if the instructions are in their DNA to act that way they really are automatic. No way around that point.

Of course there is no way round the point that IF bacteria are under instructions, they really are automatic. And hallelujah, there is no way round the point that IF bacteria are not under instructions, they really are autonomously intelligent.

DAVID: We are inside of ourselves and I know what I feel. I can never imagine to understand what it is like to be a bat, but I know a bat is not automatic.

Yes, you are self-aware and you know what you feel. However, you could be a self-aware robot unaware that you are being manipulated by instructions in your DNA, just as you are unaware of most processes that take place in your body - at least until they go wrong. NB I’m saying you could be and not you ARE a robot, just as the bacterium could be intelligent and NOT a robot. You can never imagine to understand what it is like to be a bacterium, so how do you know a bacterium IS automatic?