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

by dhw, Wednesday, September 30, 2020, 10:59 (1515 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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.

DAVID: 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.

The two points are unrelated. Yes, I agree that the soul must think with the brain it is given, i.e. it uses the brain to gather the information it thinks about, and to implement its thoughts. Now please tell me whether you think the soul is capable of thinking new thoughts, using the information provided by the existing brain.

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

I also assume that if God exists he formed history. But the only history we know is the great bush of life. Why and how God produced it is not history but interpretation. If you don’t dodge, then please tell us why your all-powerful God directly designed the dinosaur and the dodo although his only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food supply.

DAVID: 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. […]

DAVID: […] 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: […] 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?

DAVID: 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.

You can’t know his reasons, can only guess at them, and yet you know he “thinks as we do”. That is what is “preposterous”, especially when you attribute to him reasons which you yourself can’t understand, e.g. his reason for designing dinosaurs and dodos was that they were necessary for him to be able to design H. sapiens (see the “errors” thread).

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?

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

Correct. You admit that we cannot know your God’s reasons, but you have a definite opinion that his reason for creating life was to produce H. sapiens plus food supply, and that his reason for directly designing every other species that preceded H. sapiens was that they were “part of the goal of evolving humans”. You also have a definite opinion that any alternative to these guesses about his reasons – even if it is completely logical – is not how God thinks. You know how God thinks, although you don't know his reasoning.