Natures wonders: seabirds, ants and viruses (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, April 21, 2020, 12:49 (1675 days ago) @ David Turell

I am combining this thread with ant intelligence, since the subject matter overlaps.

DAVID: Trial and error does imply intellectual analysis of experience. I don't think the birds are capable of that. You insist upon intelligence everywhere, when it may be an appearance of intelligence, and nothing more, as in cellular functions.

dhw: I do not expect you to abandon your fixed beliefs, but I do expect a fair hearing for alternatives. When you agree that you have a 50/50 chance of being wrong, I am content. But the next minute you insist that you are 100% right, as in statements such as “This is not a sign of bird intelligence.”

DAVID: A non-answer. Does trial and error require intelligent analysis?

You’ve just said that it does (bolded above). However, they were your words, not mine. My point was that “birds try things out, learn from their mistakes, and eventually in this case come up with a highly intelligent solution.”

DAVID (under “Ant intelligence”): The information is monkey-see-monkey-do. Ants have eyes and join the others in an activity.

dhw: Which activity, since they are confronted with a choice, and why do they communicate with one another if they have nothing to “say”?

DAVID: They communicate to understand the activity required.

And obviously to decide which of these activities they would perform. Thank you. Communicating, understanding and deciding are characteristics most of us would associate with intelligence.

dhw: […] You could hardly have a more vivid illustration of the manner in which cells and cell communities organize themselves in accordance with whatever is required by the whole structure under varying conditions.

DAVID: The usual appeal for innate intelligence, when the cells are beautifully programmed to act intelligently.

dhw: Are you going back to your God devising programmes 3.8 billion years ago for ants and neurons to change tasks whenever required? How do they know which programme to switch on? Or do you think he does ongoing dabbles when ants and neurons change their tasks?

DAVID: You still refuse to accept automatic activity from programmed information. Tell your kidneys they do not know what they are doing or why!

We are talking about ants and neurons, which reorganize themselves to meet changing requirements. Please answer my questions. (Kidneys do not reorganize themselves.)

DAVID: […] If it looks intelligent, doesn't ever mean it is innately intelligent.

dhw: […] If it looks intelligent, maybe it IS intelligent!

DAVID: Since we look from the outside, the odds of 50/50 apply and each of us can chose a side and one of us is correct. […] I have my choice.

Of course you can make your choice. But you should not state your choice as if the alternative was impossible: e.g. “This is not a sign of bird intelligence” or ant strategies are “monkey-see-monkey-do”.

xxx

DAVID: My view is God knew bad viruses would appear as a result of His evolutionary process, and our big brain would provide ways to solve the problems that might arise. 'Decided to test us' is your view of what I have just written.

dhw: No it isn’t. On 14 April I wrote that I remembered you telling us that “he designed these things to test us” but […] I assumed you wouldn’t say so now. You replied “Yes, I would.” […]

DAVID: You have me at a disadvantage. I can't go back to a specific debate to see context, which you always leave out.

There is no other context. I have you at a disadvantage because you keep changing your mind when I probe.

DAVID: We've established God used viruses to guide evolution. We know viruses continue to evolve as we fight some of them. God must have allowed this degree of freedom. My impression, as before, is God allowed this to happen, and I cannot guess as to His reasons, but our big brain surely helps.

Good. You now have your God allowing things to happen instead of exercising full control - your usual mantra. I don’t know how this fits in with your statement that he directly designed the viruses, and I don’t know how “I cannot guess” fits in with your statement that he did so in order to test us. Your views appear to change day by day.

DAVID: Now you've reintroduce your loosey-goosey God who gives up total control. My God is too purposeful to give up total control. And you asked why God didn’t “just give us a cushy problem-free life. Would a non-challenged life be really enjoyable…?”

dhw: So tell us why your God wants to test us. As for the silly idea of “loosey-goosey” (as if God would not be God if he created autonomous organisms) see the comments on free will under “David’s theory of evolution”

DAVID: You've answered this yourself below.

[…] you only quoted the first sentence. My point was to show how close you are coming to the concept of your God creating a spectacle for himself to watch with interest:
dhw: I don’t have a problem with your God deliberately creating “errors” – your word, not mine - in order to see how we cope. He may also have set problems for other life forms with lesser brains to solve […] I agree with you: a cushy, problem-free existence of puppets on strings would be deadly boring for us, and also deadly boring for a watching puppet-maker even before we arrived on the scene.