Biological complexity: homeostasis (Introduction)

by David Turell , Saturday, October 27, 2018, 19:25 (2006 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Intelligence does NOT imply the ability to view future needs theoretically! You keep giving us examples of organisms solving problems (think of the corvids). Human intelligence – vastly superior to that of our fellow animals – can theorize about the future, but other life forms RESPOND intelligently to changing conditions. Hence adaptation, problem-solving, decision-making. You are “stuck” not only on the concept of a single designing mind, but on an astonishingly narrow view of what constitutes intelligence. […]

DAVID: You didn't note I was responding to a single concept of intelligence, specifically the ability to foresee future needs and thus design. The remainder of your comment is fine.

dhw: That is precisely what I noted and objected to. You have a single concept of intelligence which automatically excludes any organism which cannot foresee the future. If the rest of my comment is fine, then please don’t tell us that “intelligence implies the ability to use future needs theoretically” and therefore cells can’t be intelligent.

What a weird comment. Design for the future must require intelligence that can understand the requirements for a new design. You've turned my point around backwards. Cells do not contain that type of intelligence. All that has ever been shown is simple responses to simple stimuli.

DAVID: Back and forth we go: none of us can know his degree of humanity, if any. And that includes guesses at purpose. Just look at what He has created and be thankful. Dayenu. Overanalysis and sought for proofs lead to the picket fence.

dhw: Then please don’t make authoritative statements like: “He is not as human as you would like to propose”, and please stop talking about his purposefulness if you are unwilling to discuss what that purpose might be, and please stop telling us that his prime purpose was to create the brain of Homo sapiens. On the other hand, it is perfectly possible to love life and be thankful for it without (a) believing in God, and (b) while still looking for answers to all the great questions. What you call “overanalysis” is simply analysis which questions your assumptions and offers alternatives. There can be no proofs, but I respect your faith in God just as I respect the atheist’s faith in chance, and I know that you respect my picket fence position, even if you like to make fun of it!

Yes I do! My statements as to his purposes or personality are responses to your questions. They are only prompted guesses that I wouldn't otherwise think about.