Clever Corvids: the cortical equivalent in many birds (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, September 28, 2020, 14:14 (1517 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] you say that the “level of MENTAL complexity (i.e. non-material thought) is based on the number of neurons and their networks complex design” (i.e. the material brain). As I understand it, dualism entails the soul doing the thinking and the brain providing the information and implementing the thought. This is what I believe you agreed in the past.

DAVID: The key is implementation, as provided by the available complexity of the neuronal networks which allow the breadth of new thought by the soul.

You are reverting to your old fudge. We are talking about the functions of the dualist’s soul and brain. 1) The soul does the thinking. 2) The brain provides information and implements thought. Simple question for you: is the dualist’s soul capable of thinking new thoughts, using the information provided by the brain?

DAVID: Apes survived just fine without morphing into our big brains.

dhw: And bacteria survived just fine without morphing into apes and dinosaurs and the duck-billed platypus. How does that prove that every organism that ever lived was “part of the goal of evolving humans”?

DAVID: Because that is what history of evolution shows us. God creates history.

Yes, if God exists, he has created history. I’ll leave out apes and living species to prevent any digressions here. The history of evolution shows us that dinosaurs and the dodo existed. Now please tell us how the history shows that (a) your God directly designed them all, and (b) that his sole purpose in designing them was to design H. sapiens, and (c) why God could not have designed H. sapiens without designing dinosaurs and dodos first.

QUOTE: "With our study we show that cognitive abilities cannot be generalized, but that species instead differ in domain-specific cognitive skills…"

dhw: The bold is an important observation in the context of my speculations about evolution and intelligence. Firstly, there are different types of intelligence, and the fact that ants, for instance, only have tiny brains does not mean they do not have the intelligence to work out their own strategies for survival. But I would go even further. Bacteria and other single cells don’t have brains at all, but as you know, I propose that they do have intelligence, i.e. that somewhere within that tiny space is the equivalent of a brain. And that would explain how single cells can also differ in “domain-specific cognitive skills”.

DAVID: We haven't seen bacterial brains as yet with the finest of the newest technical methods but we can follow individual molecules as they work within systems, and bbwe know whole bacteria or cells follow exact instructions bb for the processes or how they respond to stimuli, all from information in the complexity of the genomes that we are still unearthing. They simply look intelligent and that is all we know at the moment.

dhw: We don’t “know” that bacteria or cells follow exact instructions from your God. We know that they perform all kinds of actions successfully, and it is impossible not to believe that these result from some form of intelligence. You claim the intelligence is in the form of instructions from God, and I propose that they work out solutions for themselves, and whatever mechanism it is that enables them to “think” passes instructions to the rest of the cell.

DAVID: It is perfectly possible to believe, as I do, that cells follow explicit intelligent instructions implanted by/from God.

Of course it’s possible to believe it, but please don’t claim that we “know” it.

DAVID: ...domain-specific cognitive skills are just that for cells and whole organisms as we observe. It does not mean they use their own innate intelligence or are subject to intelligent information instructions. I believe the latter and you the former. That will not change as long as you remain agnostic.

dhw: My agnosticism is totally irrelevant, and I wish you wouldn’t keep using it as your escape route. It is perfectly possible to believe in a God who endowed cells with intelligence.

DAVID: It does play a role. I deal in absolutes from the evidence and you in possibilities, a vastly different approach.

Yes, you have fixed and rigid beliefs as regards the nature, purpose and methods of your God. And yet you frequently remind us that we can’t “know” how God thinks. All the alternative explanations of evolution that I offer are possible versions of your God’s nature, purpose and methods. And you agree that they are all logical. Absolutely nothing to do with my agnosticism. An agnostic is just as free to speculate on these matters as a theist, and in any case I very much doubt that all theists share your views on the nature, purpose and methods of their God.