More "miscellany" PART TWO (General)

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 21, 2023, 17:59 (433 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

Fungus kills nematodes

DAVID: Cells do not have the capacity to design new forms and meet new requirements.

dhw: Do you think this unique strategy was an “absolute requirement” for the design of us and our food? If not, please tell us why your God would have designed it? […]

DAVID: Same response: necessary forms make up the giant ecosystems of food supply.

dhw: That was not my question. Do you think this unique survival strategy of a single fungus was necessary for our food supply? If not, why do you think your God specially designed it?

You asked if God designed this. God designed all life forms in evolution. Everything is a special design, all purposeful. Can't you imagine a God with purpose??


Immune system: innate and secondary

dhw: Vaccinations are not automatic, and if the adaptive immunity system produces its own "vaccines" by adapting itself to new antigens and providing new antibodies – thereby expanding the library of responses – (a) clearly the immune system evolves, and (b) the design of new antibodies requires new “thinking”. We think when we produce our vaccines. Why must you assume that cells do not think in their own special way when they produce new antibodies?

DAVID: Vaccinations are the human copy of what the immune system does. We have tp think, but the cells produce results automatically, unchanging from birth until death.

dhw: You have grasped the point, and then dropped it: the immune system does what vaccination does. Vaccination by humans requires human thought, but you reject the idea that “vaccination” by cells requires cellular thought. What is unchanged from birth until death? Have your cells never had to battle against antigens?

The cells have the same responses they had at birth. Apply the same killer proteins to every new antigen. The library grows from the same initial process.


Body heat

DAVID: I see purpose and you don't. That is why we differ.

dhw: I have just identified purpose: survival. You see purpose as God’s desire to design you and your breakfast, and so he designed countless life forms that had nothing to do with you and your breakfast, although at one time they were all “absolute requirements” for you and your breakfast. In your new theory, your God is all-powerful although 99% of his experiments were mistakes or failures, and he is in tight control, although he is not always in tight control (e.g. over environmental changes).

Survival provides for all new species from existing ones. Survival is individual purpose, not the concept of a goal-oriented method.


NDEs

dhw: San Filippo has presented two very different views: one, that NDEs are the result of brain activity, and one that they are independent of the brain. There is no mention here (apart from the shoe incident) of information received concerning events which the nearly dead person could not have known. these experiences are by far the most important in my view, since they cannot be explained by brain activity. However, I remain open-minded on the subject.

DAVID: Most written commentary offers the suggestion consciousness may be able to separate from brain activity.

dhw: A suggestion that it “may” be able to separate implies that it may not. I’m not coming down on either side, but have merely pointed out that there is a serious omission from the article – the acquisition of verifiable information that could not have been known to the patient – which might tilt the “suggestion” towards more than just a tentative “may be able”.

I had the recognition the author was less informed than we are. The issue of new information is a major point in the analysis of NDE's.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum