Brain expansion (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 20:08 (39 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I know that expansion means enlargement and complexification means new networking. But if your God was able to design an autonomous mechanism for new networking as and when required, why was he incapable of designing an autonomous mechanism for enlargement as and when required?

God could but He would have careful guidelines for the advances ment to fit His directional purposes.

dhw: […] the process of restructuring will come about through intelligence (top) making decisions and passing instructions to the lower levels (bottom), with cooperation between individual cells and between cell communities. We know that this process takes place in what you call minimal adaptation and small physiological changes, but nobody knows how maximal adaptation/ innovation takes place. My unproven theory is that it takes place through the same process (with the intelligence possibly having been designed by your God). Your theory is that the same process takes place, but instead of the cells having their own intelligence, God steps in and dabbles with them. […] And now, for the third time, please tell us the proof of your theory.

DAVID: For the umpteenth time I can't prove God to you, nor have I over 12 years. But my belief in Him came from logical conclusions from my research. You've seen my reasoning. You recognize design but won't allow yourself to get to the issue of the source of the design. IT MUST have one.

dhw: I have not asked you to prove God! We are discussing two different theistic theories about how evolution works. We agree on the hierarchy and top-down process, but you say God preprogrammed or dabbled it all, and I propose that (theistic version) he gave cells the intelligence to do it themselves. You have repeatedly dismissed my theory (and Shapiro’s) on the grounds that it is unproven. What proof do you have for your own theory?

DAVID: As above, a designer is absolutely required. A designer who is in absolute control of the processes. I will accept your IM if it contains rigid guidelines to control an absolute directional purpose for the goal, humans.

dhw: Back we go to your theory of evolution and your three rigid and irreconcilable beliefs: (1) all-knowing, all-powerful God, 2) only purpose H. sapiens, 3) designs millions of non-human life forms, natural wonders etc. before designing only species he wants to design.

Not irreconcilable to me. God chose to evolve from bacteria and you've stated He could chose that approach, so what is your problem? Obviously you don't like His choice.

dhw: You will only accept autonomous cellular intelligence (possibly invented by your God) as the driving force of evolution if I agree that it is neither autonomous nor intelligent but is dependent on your God’s preprogramming or dabbling. Meanwhile, do you or do you not accept that your theory concerning both brain expansion in particular and evolution in general (God preprogrammed or dabbled it all) is as unproven as mine? If you accept this, please stop using “unproven” as a reason for rejecting my theory.

I can't accept inventions from nothing. What we know is, that on the way to humans brains, resulted from provided expansions especially in the area that can conceive of complex concepts, when the soul wishes to do that. That shows underlying purpose in the process. We can assume previous brains could complexify a bit. You've agreed. We know in our brain, learning and complex thinking by the soul, results in complexification which shrinks the brain, which apparently is somewhat oversized to allow this process to occur. These are the only facts we have to work with. These facts can only lead me to God as the designer. There is no natural evidence for a method of expansion. So you introduce your version of God providing the brain with its own expansion mechanism. Fine. We are now somewhat is agreement, until I add that my purposeful God will have guidelines in the expansion process to be sure of the directionality of His guided evolutionary process. And you balk. That your God shouldn't be in that much control makes no sense to me.

The real problem is only yours. Design keeps you agnostic. You recognize the need for a designing source. A disembodied mind that has always been around is the only possible answer, because we are here to debate the issue. That mind must exist. We don't need to call it God. Something must be a first cause. These are proven points. We disagree on the attributes only because you inexplicably want natural causes while ignoring the chain of reasoning just presented. You have a problem you don't know how to answer. It is not my problem. I'm with a designing mind always existing, an inescapable thought.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum