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

by David Turell , Tuesday, September 29, 2020, 17:19 (1516 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: 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: My dualist theory, not fudge. The soul must use the brain it is given to think, and does receive information from that brain, where you limit your theory.

dhw: No, my theory goes on to propose that the modern brain implements the new thoughts/ideas by complexifying and in the case of the hippocampus, expanding (adding new cells). You know the rest. Meanwhile, my simple question bolded above can be answered by a yes or a no.

There is no yes or no answer since you avoid my point that the soul must think with the brain it is given, as stated above, a major difference in approach.

dhw: [..] 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.

DAVID:(a) God creates history; (b) humans arrived as the unexpected endpoint (Adler); (c)
God chose to evolve us for those of us who believe in God.

dhw:If God exists, I agree with (a), (b) I agree that humans arrived. Who didn’t expect humans? “Endpoint” means the conclusion, and humans may be the conclusion in the sense that there will never be a more complex product. It certainly doesn’t mean that evolution is finished, and it doesn’t explain why your all-powerful God designed dinosaurs and dodos if all he wanted to design was H. sapiens. This is the problem you always dodge. (c) Those of you who believe in God must also believe that he chose to evolve the dinosaur and the dodo. They do not have to believe that evolution is synonymous with direct design, as in preprogramming and/or dabbling. These are the things that history does not show!

I assume God, as creator, formed history. Therefore I don't dodge. You refuse accept it.

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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: I am my own theist. I follow my reasoning as influenced by some authors. The bold is not my thinking. God thinks as we do. His reasoning is guided by His precise purposes. His choice of creation methods follows his reasoning which we cannot know but about which can make guesses.

dhw: You tried to dismiss my criticism of your illogicality and all my alternative theories on the grounds that I am an agnostic. An agnostic can guess just as well as a theist! The illogicality of your approach is all too clear from this latest comment of yours. How can you possibly know that God thinks as we do if you cannot follow his reasoning?

Preposterous. How can I know his reasons? I know your reasoning because you have explained it. Reasoning is individual to each person. Methods of thought can be similar.

dhw: You make guesses and I make guesses, and you acknowledge that all of mine are logical but you “deal in absolutes” and I deal in “possibilities”. Since we cannot know his reasoning and can only guess, how can we deal in absolutes and not in possibilities?

I reach definite opinions. Your's are in all directions of possibilities.