autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, January 27, 2018, 13:28 (2490 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I've always accepted an onboard IM with God's guidelines could help an organism solve problems without 3.8 byo preprogramming. Our disagreement is you want it totally autonomous and I insist on God's guidelines, making it semiautonomous.

dhw: We have discussed this many times before, and we have always ended up with you telling me that the onboard IM is God’s instructions (= no autonomy). Your two divine methods are preprogramming and dabbling. Here is a concrete example: do you think your God preprogrammed the first living cells to pass on instructions for the building of the weaverbird’s nest (no autonomy)? Or do you think he stood by the weaverbird giving it instructions/guidelines (no autonomy). Please tell us as clearly as you can which half of the weaverbird’s building you think was autonomous, and what form you think your God’s guidelines take.

DAVID: I have no idea which is correct, which is why I have preprogramming from the beginning and dabbling as equally probable. And I have always prefered an IM as under guidelines, if an IM is actually present, but we have no proof of it. It would seem the nest was dabbled as the best expectation.

No progress then since our previous discussions. What you mean by semiautonomous is either preprogrammed or dabbled – i.e. no autonomy at all. And what you mean by guidelines is also preprogramming or dabbling – i.e. no autonomy at all. And when you say my (theistic) hypothesis of autonomous as opposed to preprogrammed or dabbled solution-finding fits in perfectly with your theory, you actually means it’s the precise opposite of your theory. These obfuscations and blatant contradictions will not help us much in our joint quest to explain the inexplicable!