Biological complexity: managing cellular oxygen levels (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, October 12, 2019, 12:38 (1651 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Why do you always insist that [God] wanted to create a world of automatons? In your more open-minded moments you have conceded that he may be watching the world with interest. Which do you find more interesting – a show in which everything is totally predictable, or a show full of wonderful surprises? “You’re humanizing him!” will be the cry. And the next moment you’ll agree that he “very well could think like us”. So why not accept the possibility that in certain respects he “very well could think like us”, instead of pretending that you know he doesn’t?

DAVID: Your imagined God sits in the stands and watches the show. Pure humanization.

I think you had him sitting behind a quantum wall watching with interest. Your response is anticipated by the first bold, and your inconsistency is highlighted by the second bold.
NB this “deistic” hypothesis is only one of the alternatives I offer.

dhw: Their form of consciousness is vastly less advanced than our own. But it is sufficient for them to maximise their own chances of survival, and that means taking steps to protect themselves against future dangers already known from past experience.

DAVID: You have again glibly assumed insects can imagine the future in order to protect their larvae. Really? Do you think monarchs go through four generations each year and 'know' about each one? Totally illogical. I view the bolded as a fairy tale of thought and reminiscent of the just-so stories from Darwinism. Insects are totally programmed in their genome. Metamorphosis calls for all cells to dissolve and become different cells in a different body, and you think that change is supposed to carry neuronal memory? Preposterous and totally illogical.

DAVID (under “IMMUNITY SYSTEM COMPLEXITY”): Once an infection is defeated there must be a memory for the next time that same infection is attempted.

But it doesn’t occur to you that precisely the same argument applies to every innovation, strategy, lifestyle,and natural wonder. As soon as something is successful, “there must be a memory for the next time”.

dhw: “Imagining the future” is your phrase, not mine. I wrote: “Do you honestly believe that organisms are not aware of dangers and do not learn from experience and do not take precautions”? These are manifestations of consciousness, and we know they are capable of solving new problems as and when they arise.

DAVID: Your insects still foretell the dangers in the future. I don't understand why you cannot see the problem in your totally illogical thoughts? Your insects are prescient. Really? Do you think the eaten larvae tell their parents what happened?

If a solution to an EXISTING (not a future) problem had not been found, the species would have died out, as happens all the time in life’s history. I do not claim to know any more than you do how every strategy was first discovered, but do please answer the question bolded above and the bolded comment that follows.

dhw: I have no idea how every single natural wonder originated, but I stand by the bold as a more than convincing alternative to your theory (which many would call a just-so story) that there is an unknown sourceless supermind which provided the first living cells with programmes to pass on through thousands of millions of years and organisms for every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder throughout the history of life. There can, however, be little doubt that even within your own theory, once a life form, style or wonder has come into being, every one of these will be perpetuated by some form of cellular memory, since changes are passed on. Unless you think your God is sitting there pulling the strings of every single organism on the planet. Another just-so story?

DAVID: And what is the source of the designs you see but cannot explain, which therefore keeps you agnostic? There must be a designing mind. Mind is required.

I keep agreeing that the source of cellular intelligence may be your God. Your question is a complete digression from the unlikelihood of your own theory, and you have failed to comment on the need for cellular memory in both theories.