Miscellany (General)

by dhw, Saturday, June 26, 2021, 07:59 (1037 days ago) @ David Turell

Insect smell receptors
DAVID: As a surface analysis. Intelligently-run automaticity looks exactly the same. The same 50/50.

dhw: How does an automaton create meaning through learning and experience? I am simply pointing out that the terminology of the article favours intelligence. I know you don’t.

DAVID: I have to interpret from Darwinist articles. I can agree with an appearance of intelligence.

If you agree that these organisms appear to be intelligent, how can you dismiss the idea that they might actually BE intelligent? And why do you bring your pet hate Darwin into it? Meaningful patterns created through learning and experience coincide with Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence.

Plant cell regulators
DAVID: As usual you skip over the complexity of the arrangement for newborn protection system. Not by chance evolution.

dhw: I have never proposed chance evolution, and I do not skip over the complexity. I am pointing out that the complexity is the result of millions of years of complexification, as the cell communities of all organisms learn to solve new problems and pass their solutions on. The difference between our theories is that you insist that your God either preprogrammed every solution to every problem 3.8 billion years ago, or is constantly present and dabbling whenever a new problem arises. I find your theory somewhat far-fetched.

DAVID: God in charge is not far-fetched.

Of course God in charge is not far-fetched. If he exists and can create a universe, then he can do whatever he likes. But that doesn’t mean he has to be a control freak, or that his sole purpose was to create humans and their lunch, or that he needed to preprogramme or dabble every species, lifestyle etc. that ever lived in order to achieve that purpose. You constantly resort to these generalizations in your effort to dodge the disconnected details of your theory.

Cosmic filaments spin
DAVID: The bold is your usual guesswork 'something might be wrong' or 'why do we need it?' God has his reasons, and bit by bit we figure them out.

dhw: The something that might be wrong is your inexplicable insistence that your God specially designed all these “strange things” although his one and only purpose was to design humans and their lunch. We may figure out sequences of cause and effect, but if you cannot find reasons for your dislocated theory of evolution, whereas you find my own alternatives logical, you can hardly expect me to be convinced by “God has his reasons” for doing and thinking what you say he does and thinks.

DAVID: You are objecting to my belief God designed this universe.

If God exists, I have no objection to your belief that he designed the universe. In that context, it is his existence that is the BIG question. But if he does exist, I object to your belief that he would have designed billions of galaxies extant and extinct and millions of life forms etc. extant and extinct solely in order to design H. sapiens plus lunch.

Jupiter and Saturn have fevers
DAVID: As above God has all the answers, and we try to figure them out, while you remain a doubting Thomas.

dhw: Since you have not figured out a single reason why God would act the way you think he acts, of course I doubt your theory. […]

DAVID: You ask me to explain God's reasoning. You know I can't, nor can you. I don't try. No need.

I do not ask you to explain God’s reasoning, because nobody knows God’s reasoning! I ask you to explain YOUR THEORY about God’s reasoning and his actions. But you can’t. I offer you alternative theories, each of which provides a logical explanation as to how his possible reasoning and possible actions can make sense when combined. You agree that all these alternative explanations are logical, but prefer to cling to your fixed set of incompatible beliefs.

Possible new hominin species
QUOTE: "'We forget, even as anthropologists, that it’s really weird for us to be the only hominins left alive," says Laura Buck. (David’s bold)

DAVID: Variations in form should be considered rather than multiple species, but even so the hominin bush is big, and could be the result of different types interbreeding and hybridizing. Note my bold. I'm not surprised because of our probable superior brain.

It’s also weird that there have been so many different forms. So which were the forms that ultimately evolved into sapiens? And if the other forms were not part of the evolution of sapiens, where does this leave your theory of all life forms being specially designed as part of your God’s goal to design sapiens and our lunch? Were all the other hominins supposed to evolve into our lunch? But I agree with your comment. It seems to me that this diversity suggests convergent evolution, as each hominin form (= each community of cell communities) evolved in accordance with the conditions in which it lived. The fact that some must have travelled and interbred with others would account for their traces being found in us, and once we started to travel, it makes perfect sense that our probably superior brain eventually resulted in our taking over.