Miscellany (General)

by dhw, Thursday, September 09, 2021, 12:01 (342 days ago) @ David Turell

New amphibious whale
dhw: Why is it more difficult and cumbersome for God to invent a single mechanism which will be capable of autonomously making each decision, performing each operation, coping with each new situation, than for him to keep popping in and doing it all himself "hands on"?

DAVID: In human designing. if you do it yourself it is much easier than telling someone else how to do it and reach the proper desired result. I've been there as previously described.

dhw: Telling someone else means giving them instructions! I agree with you completely. In the theistic theory of cellular intelligence, your God has given cells the ABILITY to do the designing all by themselves, i.e. first-hand! “Much easier” for him than having to pop in and give them lessons on how to deal with every single new situation and on how to invent every innovation. Thank you for this excellent argument.

You then repeated your irrelevant comment about telling people what to do. Please just answer the bolded question.

DAVID: It is answered from my experience in design. You don't like the answer applied to God.

In your experience, it is easier to do things yourself than to tell someone else how to do it. And in your theory, your God spends all his time issuing instructions or teaching cells how to do it. Wouldn’t it be less difficult and cumbersome if the cells did it themselves, just as you do?

Introducing the brain
DAVID: The neurons were designed with full instructions to cover the abilities we are now discovering they have in the previously study entry.

dhw: What do you mean by "instructions to cover" the abilities? Either they have the autonomous ability to solve problems, or they are given instructions on how to solve them. We are back in your Wonderland, where your definition of AUTONOMY was obeying instructions.

DAVID: Exactly defined as before. Autonomy in your sense involves actual thought. Neuron s don't do that except in your imagination.

Yes, autonomy involves actual thought – though that is not to be compared to our own thinking. It is limited to what cells/cell communities can do in order to adapt to or exploit conditions. Autonomy does not mean obeying instructions.

Feser on dualism
QUOTE: “… in our moods and feelings we are not often sure what part is physical and what not. There is no sharp dividing line between. The life of flesh and blood is particularly focused about the feelings and emotions. So long as there is no adequate conception of the concrete or lived body, our theories of mind cannot deal adequately with the life of feeling."

dhw: I truly believe that animals have a degree of consciousness, but I also truly believe that my desk and chair do not. And I haven’t a clue what this is supposed to teach me about the possibility of there being an immaterial me, or of my various cell communities producing all my thoughts and feelings. [David's bold]

DAVID: The bold, I hope does not mean our degree of consciousness. Animals are conscious, but not aware they are aware.

“A" degree of consciousness does not mean “our” degree of consciousness. Ah well, at least we agree on something! :-)

Universal iconic language sounds
DAVID: Perhaps, like common syntax imbedded in us, certain vocalizations have a broad meaning.

I wish you wouldn’t refer to the common syntax theory as if it were a fact.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum