Miscellaneous (General)
I’m returning to “Miscellaneous” as each of these subjects can be dealt with fairly briefly, and I don’t want to swamp “latest postings” with so many headings. Fine, though, for you to introduce new subjects as you are doing. Thank you, as always, for your research.
Immunity system complexity
QUOTES: “To thrive in their new hosts, bacteria seek out iron. To protect their iron supplies, which are stored in mitochondria, the worms activate a defense tactic.”
"Dillin and his team showed that C. elegans worms’ sense of smell coordinates a mitochondrial response, particularly in intestinal cells, to resist bacterial infection. The researchers speculate that this process is conserved in mammals for pathogen detection and immune regulation.”
DAVID: this is a clear example of an automatic protein trigger for response to a specific danger. No thought involved.
The fact that scientists have observed the material mechanisms by which organisms defend themselves does not mean that the processes do not require thought of some kind. You have always accepted that this is true of bacteria. So now you have intelligent bacteria and robot worms, the latter having somehow been preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago to switch on whatever set of instructions your God planted in the cells which evolved into C. elegans and into every other species you can think of. Not too far-fetched for you?
Introducing the brain; its fractal organizstion
DAVID: There is no question an amoeba acts with purpose. The question is how automatic are those actions based upon built-in designed responses. A designing God and chance are the only two possible answers.
dhw: By built-in designed responses I presume you mean detailed instructions on how the amoeba should respond to all situations and conditions for the rest of time, and the appropriate set of instructions will automatically switch itself on when each particular problem arises. You cannot or will not countenance the possibility that your God might have endowed the amoeba or any other brainless organism or indeed most cell communities with the intelligence to work out their own solutions.
DAVID: Your interpretation is correct. I believe it is all automatic.
Same again: your God preprogrammed the first cells with instructions not only for every species, but also for every response by every cell to every new condition/problem that might arise for the rest of time (except when he popped in to do a dabble). And you tell us that your views keep evolving and you explore possibilities. I’ll wait patiently for you to “evolve” this view and explore other possibilities.
A theoretical God
DAVID: Considering what has been created, especially the massive complexity of the biochemistry of life, one must presume a God with endless capacities and knowledge.
I’m not sure about “endless”, but if God exists, then we can certainly assume that he knows (or finds out) how to create what he has created.
DAVID: That is how I start my view of God. Following Adler, the appearance of humans through natural evolution is so unusual a result, we are God's primary purpose in evolving us.
We’ve been through this before, and your first sentence already tells us that the massive complexity of the biochemistry of life is so “unusual” that every single species – including all those that had no connection with humans – must have been part of your God’s purpose. “Primary” is not the same as one and only, and you have never accepted any other purpose. This, as you have agreed right from the start, presents you with an insoluble problem, because if your God’s powers are endless, it makes absolutely no sense that he designed and had to cull 99.9% of species that had no connection with the one and only purpose you impose on him.
DAVID: How we relate to God is an endless discussion here, along with how He relates to us. You have one fixed view of a humanized God while my views keep evolving and many steps I've taken are contradictory to past positions. But at least I am exploring possibilities.
I have never ever offered any fixed view of a God which for all I know does not even exist, and I have never suggested that God is a human being. You have agreed that he may have certain thought patterns and emotions like our own, and I have offered you various alternative theistic explanations of how and why a theoretical God might have used evolution for different purposes and methods from those you have fixed your mind on. Some of these followed on from your own proposals or agreements (enjoyment, interest, escape from boredom, desire for a relationship with us, recognition, worship). Your contradictions persist into the present – you accept that the latter purposes are possible, but you say they are not possible because your God is selfless and is not human in any way. Similarly, your God is 100% benevolent, but there is only a 50/50 chance that he cares about us, and you then exclude any possibility that he might care about us because caring is a human emotion and your God is not human in any way. Thank you for accepting the fact that you are continually contradicting yourself. It would be nice to think that this awareness might help you to explore possibilities to which so far you have closed your mind!
(See the “evolution” thread for further discussion.)
Miscellaneous
by David Turell 
, Wednesday, November 13, 2024, 16:45 (8 days ago) @ dhw
Immunity system complexity
QUOTES: “To thrive in their new hosts, bacteria seek out iron. To protect their iron supplies, which are stored in mitochondria, the worms activate a defense tactic.”
"Dillin and his team showed that C. elegans worms’ sense of smell coordinates a mitochondrial response, particularly in intestinal cells, to resist bacterial infection. The researchers speculate that this process is conserved in mammals for pathogen detection and immune regulation.”
DAVID: this is a clear example of an automatic protein trigger for response to a specific danger. No thought involved.
dhw: The fact that scientists have observed the material mechanisms by which organisms defend themselves does not mean that the processes do not require thought of some kind. You have always accepted that this is true of bacteria. So now you have intelligent bacteria and robot worms, the latter having somehow been preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago to switch on whatever set of instructions your God planted in the cells which evolved into C. elegans and into every other species you can think of. Not too far-fetched for you?
Your prejudice bites you. This single example is clearly automatic. The C elegans may have simple thoughts in some other way.
Introducing the brain; its fractal organizstionDAVID: There is no question an amoeba acts with purpose. The question is how automatic are those actions based upon built-in designed responses. A designing God and chance are the only two possible answers.
dhw: By built-in designed responses I presume you mean detailed instructions on how the amoeba should respond to all situations and conditions for the rest of time, and the appropriate set of instructions will automatically switch itself on when each particular problem arises. You cannot or will not countenance the possibility that your God might have endowed the amoeba or any other brainless organism or indeed most cell communities with the intelligence to work out their own solutions.
DAVID: Your interpretation is correct. I believe it is all automatic.
dhw: Same again: your God preprogrammed the first cells with instructions not only for every species, but also for every response by every cell to every new condition/problem that might arise for the rest of time (except when he popped in to do a dabble). And you tell us that your views keep evolving and you explore possibilities.
I won't leave the obvious automaticity.
A theoretical GodDAVID: Considering what has been created, especially the massive complexity of the biochemistry of life, one must presume a God with endless capacities and knowledge.
I’m not sure about “endless”, but if God exists, then we can certainly assume that he knows (or finds out) how to create what he has created.
DAVID: That is how I start my view of God. Following Adler, the appearance of humans through natural evolution is so unusual a result, we are God's primary purpose in evolving us.
dhw: We’ve been through this before, and your first sentence already tells us that the massive complexity of the biochemistry of life is so “unusual” that every single species – including all those that had no connection with humans – must have been part of your God’s purpose. “Primary” is not the same as one and only, and you have never accepted any other purpose. This, as you have agreed right from the start, presents you with an insoluble problem, because if your God’s powers are endless, it makes absolutely no sense that he designed and had to cull 99.9% of species that had no connection with the one and only purpose you impose on him.
Stop blaming God for choosing to evolve us.
DAVID: How we relate to God is an endless discussion here, along with how He relates to us. You have one fixed view of a humanized God while my views keep evolving and many steps I've taken are contradictory to past positions. But at least I am exploring possibilities.dhw: I have never ever offered any fixed view of a God which for all I know does not even exist, and I have never suggested that God is a human being. You have agreed that he may have certain thought patterns and emotions like our own, and I have offered you various alternative theistic explanations of how and why a theoretical God might have used evolution for different purposes and methods from those you have fixed your mind on. Some of these followed on from your own proposals or agreements (enjoyment, interest, escape from boredom, desire for a relationship with us, recognition, worship). Your contradictions persist into the present – you accept that the latter purposes are possible, but you say they are not possible because your God is selfless and is not human in any way. Similarly, your God is 100% benevolent, but there is only a 50/50 chance that he cares about us, and you then exclude any possibility that he might care about us because caring is a human emotion and your God is not human in any way. Thank you for accepting the fact that you are continually contradicting yourself. It would be nice to think that this awareness might help you to explore possibilities to which so far you have closed your mind!
At least I keep trying.
Miscellaneous
Immunity system complexity (C elegans, and also the brain’s fractal organization)
QUOTE: "Dillin and his team showed that C. elegans worms’ sense of smell coordinates a mitochondrial response, particularly in intestinal cells, to resist bacterial infection. The researchers speculate that this process is conserved in mammals for pathogen detection and immune regulation.”
DAVID: this is a clear example of an automatic protein trigger for response to a specific danger. No thought involved.
dhw: The fact that scientists have observed the material mechanisms by which organisms defend themselves does not mean that the processes do not require thought of some kind. You have always accepted that this is true of bacteria. So now you have intelligent bacteria and robot worms, the latter having somehow been preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago to switch on whatever set of instructions your God planted in the cells which evolved into C. elegans and into every other species you can think of. Not too far-fetched for you?
DAVID: Your prejudice bites you. This single example is clearly automatic. The C elegans may have simple thoughts in some other way.
Do you believe that 3.8 billion years ago, your God designed every response to every threat that C elegans would ever face from all invading bacteria for the rest of C elegans’ history? Ditto for all other bacterial threats to all other species. Or is it possible that he designed a mechanism by which C elegans and all other species might try to work out their own means of countering bacterial threats? (I say “try”, because we should not forget the many cases of failure, which of course would highlight the inadequacy of your omniscient God’s instructions.)
A theoretical God
DAVID: Following Adler, the appearance of humans through natural evolution is so unusual a result, we are God's primary purpose in evolving us.
dhw: […] the massive complexity of the biochemistry of life is so “unusual” that every single species – including all those that had no connection with humans – must have been part of your God’s purpose. “Primary” is not the same as one and only, and you have never accepted any other purpose. This, as you have agreed right from the start, presents you with an insoluble problem, because if your God’s powers are endless, it makes absolutely no sense that he designed and had to cull 99.9% of species that had no connection with the one and only purpose you impose on him.
DAVID: Stop blaming God for choosing to evolve us.
I am not blaming God for any such thing! I am blaming you for coming up with a theory that you agree makes no sense. If God exists, he chose to “evolve” ALL species, and YOU call him imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient for designing and having to cull 99.9% of them.
dhw: Thank you for accepting the fact that you are continually contradicting yourself. It would be nice to think that this awareness might help you to explore possibilities to which so far you have closed your mind! (See the “evolution” thread for further discussion.)
DAVID: At least I keep trying.
You keep trying to defend your fixed beliefs and to dismiss alternatives, although you admit that these provide logical explanations for problems you can’t solve.
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organics
QUOTES: The Rosetta mission and others have shown just how ubiquitous organic molecules are in space, too.
[…] as comets and asteroids reveal, the nonliving world is complex in its own right. Compounds thought to be biosignatures have been found on lifeless rocks...
DAVID: the non-living world is filled with organic molecules. Living matter was destined, but we just don't know how it happened.
I must confess I don’t understand what this “discovery” is meant to prove. If organic molecules are not living organisms, we are still back where we started as regards the origin of life. Or is this an indirect reference to some kind of panpsychism?
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Thursday, November 14, 2024, 22:46 (6 days ago) @ dhw
Immunity system complexity (C elegans, and also the brain’s fractal organization)
DAVID: this is a clear example of an automatic protein trigger for response to a specific danger. No thought involved.
dhw: The fact that scientists have observed the material mechanisms by which organisms defend themselves does not mean that the processes do not require thought of some kind. You have always accepted that this is true of bacteria. So now you have intelligent bacteria and robot worms, the latter having somehow been preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago to switch on whatever set of instructions your God planted in the cells which evolved into C. elegans and into every other species you can think of. Not too far-fetched for you?
DAVID: Your prejudice bites you. This single example is clearly automatic. The C elegans may have simple thoughts in some other way.
hw: Do you believe that 3.8 billion years ago, your God designed every response to every threat that C elegans would ever face from all invading bacteria for the rest of C elegans’ history? Ditto for all other bacterial threats to all other species. Or is it possible that he designed a mechanism by which C elegans and all other species might try to work out their own means of countering bacterial threats? (I say “try”, because we should not forget the many cases of failure, which of course would highlight the inadequacy of your omniscient God’s instructions.)
An omniscient God knows all future needs. That is where your God fails.
A theoretical GodDAVID: Following Adler, the appearance of humans through natural evolution is so unusual a result, we are God's primary purpose in evolving us.
dhw: […] the massive complexity of the biochemistry of life is so “unusual” that every single species – including all those that had no connection with humans – must have been part of your God’s purpose. “Primary” is not the same as one and only, and you have never accepted any other purpose. This, as you have agreed right from the start, presents you with an insoluble problem, because if your God’s powers are endless, it makes absolutely no sense that he designed and had to cull 99.9% of species that had no connection with the one and only purpose you impose on him.
DAVID: Stop blaming God for choosing to evolve us.
dhw: I am not blaming God for any such thing! I am blaming you for coming up with a theory that you agree makes no sense. If God exists, he chose to “evolve” ALL species, and YOU call him imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient for designing and having to cull 99.9% of them.
I remind the readers God chose to evolve us for His own unknown reasons and its cumbersomeness makes me critical.
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organics
QUOTES: The Rosetta mission and others have shown just how ubiquitous organic molecules are in space, too.
[…] as comets and asteroids reveal, the nonliving world is complex in its own right. Compounds thought to be biosignatures have been found on lifeless rocks...
DAVID: the non-living world is filled with organic molecules. Living matter was destined, but we just don't know how it happened.
dhw: I must confess I don’t understand what this “discovery” is meant to prove. If organic molecules are not living organisms, we are still back where we started as regards the origin of life. Or is this an indirect reference to some kind of panpsychism?
No, all it means, as stated, is life was predestined.
Miscellaneous
Immunity system complexity (C elegans, and also the brain’s fractal organization)
dhw: Do you believe that 3.8 billion years ago, your God designed every response to every threat that C elegans would ever face from all invading bacteria for the rest of C elegans’ history? Ditto for all other bacterial threats to all other species. Or is it possible that he designed a mechanism by which C elegans and all other species might try to work out their own means of countering bacterial threats? (I say “try”, because we should not forget the many cases of failure, which of course would highlight the inadequacy of your omniscient God’s instructions.)
DAVID: An omniscient God knows all future needs. That is where your God fails.
Firstly, it is only your guess that your God is “omniscient”, and you contradict this yourself when you inform us that he didn’t know how to correct all the errors in his system and relied on us to provide the corrections. Secondly, please answer my bolded questions.
A theoretical God
DAVID: Stop blaming God for choosing to evolve us.
dhw: I am not blaming God for any such thing! I am blaming you for coming up with a theory that you agree makes no sense. If God exists, he chose to “evolve” ALL species, and YOU call him imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient for designing and having to cull 99.9% of them.
DAVID: I remind the readers God chose to evolve us for His own unknown reasons and its cumbersomeness makes me critical.
No need to repeat what I have just said! You have just criticised me for blaming God, which I have not done (I blame you), and now you repeat your criticism (= blame) of your God when you should be criticising the “cumbersomeness” of your theory!
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organics
QUOTE: The Rosetta mission and others have shown just how ubiquitous organic molecules are in space, too.
dhw: I must confess I don’t understand what this “discovery” is meant to prove. If organic molecules are not living organisms, we are still back where we started as regards the origin of life. Or is this an indirect reference to some kind of panpsychism?
DAVID: No, all it means, as stated, is life was predestined.
I don’t understand that either. If anything, it means that with all the ingredients of life flying around in space, it was inevitable that one fine day they would meet and produce life. One up for atheism. But if you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient God, why all the rigmarole of billions of bits and pieces floating around for billions of years?
Introducing the brain: consciousness as ephaptic fields
QUOTES: "These effects, resulting from the electric fields produced by neurons rather than their synaptic firings, may play a leading role in our mind’s workings.”
"This single paper could take the field of ephaptic field science from the fringes of neuroscience to the forefront. Its findings regarding the speed and pervasiveness of ephaptic field effects may presage a fundamentally new understanding of how cognition and consciousness work." (David's bold)
DAVID: the bold just above expresses my feelings. It is an impressive suggestion. I must admit it comfortably fits my underlying dualism, as a field theory not fully tied to serial synaptic connections but fitting into fields.
I don’t understand how a process that depends in the first instance on neurons can fit your dualism. We should also note that these experiments were carried out on mice – and earlier on rabbits and cats. Do you regard this as evidence that mice, rabbits and cats have souls that will live on after they die?
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Friday, November 15, 2024, 23:17 (5 days ago) @ dhw
Immunity system complexity (C elegans, and also the brain’s fractal organization)
dhw: Do you believe that 3.8 billion years ago, your God designed every response to every threat that C elegans would ever face from all invading bacteria for the rest of C elegans’ history? Ditto for all other bacterial threats to all other species. Or is it possible that he designed a mechanism by which C elegans and all other species might try to work out their own means of countering bacterial threats? (I say “try”, because we should not forget the many cases of failure, which of course would highlight the inadequacy of your omniscient God’s instructions.)
DAVID: An omniscient God knows all future needs. That is where your God fails.
dhw: Firstly, it is only your guess that your God is “omniscient”, and you contradict this yourself when you inform us that he didn’t know how to correct all the errors in his system and relied on us to provide the corrections. Secondly, please answer my bolded questions.
Answered over and over. Close to 100% of all reactions automatic.
A theoretical GodDAVID: Stop blaming God for choosing to evolve us.
dhw: I am not blaming God for any such thing! I am blaming you for coming up with a theory that you agree makes no sense. If God exists, he chose to “evolve” ALL species, and YOU call him imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient for designing and having to cull 99.9% of them.
DAVID: I remind the readers God chose to evolve us for His own unknown reasons and its cumbersomeness makes me critical.
dhw: No need to repeat what I have just said! You have just criticised me for blaming God, which I have not done (I blame you), and now you repeat your criticism (= blame) of your God when you should be criticising the “cumbersomeness” of your theory!
Early in these discussion it was you who said God should not have evolved us, but used direct creation.
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organicsQUOTE: The Rosetta mission and others have shown just how ubiquitous organic molecules are in space, too.
dhw: I must confess I don’t understand what this “discovery” is meant to prove. If organic molecules are not living organisms, we are still back where we started as regards the origin of life. Or is this an indirect reference to some kind of panpsychism?
DAVID: No, all it means, as stated, is life was predestined.
dhw: I don’t understand that either. If anything, it means that with all the ingredients of life flying around in space, it was inevitable that one fine day they would meet and produce life. One up for atheism. But if you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient God, why all the rigmarole of billions of bits and pieces floating around for billions of years?
You can't just let proteins fall together and get life! It takes careful design.
Introducing the brain: consciousness as ephaptic fields
QUOTES: "These effects, resulting from the electric fields produced by neurons rather than their synaptic firings, may play a leading role in our mind’s workings.”
"This single paper could take the field of ephaptic field science from the fringes of neuroscience to the forefront. Its findings regarding the speed and pervasiveness of ephaptic field effects may presage a fundamentally new understanding of how cognition and consciousness work." (David's bold)
DAVID: the bold just above expresses my feelings. It is an impressive suggestion. I must admit it comfortably fits my underlying dualism, as a field theory not fully tied to serial synaptic connections but fitting into fields.
dhw: I don’t understand how a process that depends in the first instance on neurons can fit your dualism. We should also note that these experiments were carried out on mice – and earlier on rabbits and cats. Do you regard this as evidence that mice, rabbits and cats have souls that will live on after they die?
The Jewish religion thinks so: Nefesh and Neshama, souls for both.
Miscellaneous
Immunity system complexity (C elegans, and also the brain’s fractal organization)
dhw: Do you believe that 3.8 billion years ago, your God designed every response to every threat that C elegans would ever face from all invading bacteria for the rest of C elegans’ history? Ditto for all other bacterial threats to all other species. Or is it possible that he designed a mechanism by which C elegans and all other species might try to work out their own means of countering bacterial threats? (I say “try”, because we should not forget the many cases of failure, which of course would highlight the inadequacy of your omniscient God’s instructions.)
DAVID: Answered over and over. Close to 100% of all reactions automatic.
That is not what I am asking. There are countless threats. Do you believe that 3.8 billion years ago, your God provided the first cells with detailed instructions on how organs/organisms should respond to every one, and the right instructions are “automatically” switched on when the relevant threat materializes? If not, please tell us what part your God has played in designing all the responses (some of them unsuccessful) to all the threats.
A theoretical God
DAVID: Stop blaming God for choosing to evolve us.
dhw: I am not blaming God for any such thing! I am blaming you for coming up with a theory that you agree makes no sense. […]
DAVID: Early in these discussion it was you who said God should not have evolved us, but used direct creation.
I have never said any such thing. I have asked you why, if your omnipotent God’s one and only purpose was to design us, he designed and then had to cull all the species that had nothing to do with us,although you believe he can create species directly, without precursors (e.g. during the Cambrian). This is a way of questioning the purpose you impose on him. But since you insist that this is his purpose, it is you who criticise/blame him for using such an “inefficient” method.
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organics
QUOTE: The Rosetta mission and others have shown just how ubiquitous organic molecules are in space, too.
dhw: I must confess I don’t understand what this “discovery” is meant to prove. If organic molecules are not living organisms, we are still back where we started as regards the origin of life. Or is this an indirect reference to some kind of panpsychism?
DAVID: No, all it means, as stated, is life was predestined.
dhw: I don’t understand that either. If anything, it means that with all the ingredients of life flying around in space, it was inevitable that one fine day they would meet and produce life. One up for atheism. But if you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient God, why all the rigmarole of billions of bits and pieces floating around for billions of years?
DAVID: You can't just let proteins fall together and get life! It takes careful design.
So why did your careful, omnipotent, omniscient designer create billions of organic molecules to float around for billions of years if all he wanted to do was stick some together in order to create us and our food? Back to square one.
Introducing the brain: consciousness as ephaptic fields
QUOTE: "This single paper could take the field of ephaptic field science from the fringes of neuroscience to the forefront. Its findings regarding the speed and pervasiveness of ephaptic field effects may presage a fundamentally new understanding of how cognition and consciousness work." (David's bold)
DAVID: the bold just above expresses my feelings. It is an impressive suggestion. I must admit it comfortably fits my underlying dualism, as a field theory not fully tied to serial synaptic connections but fitting into fields.
dhw: I don’t understand how a process that depends in the first instance on neurons can fit your dualism. We should also note that these experiments were carried out on mice – and earlier on rabbits and cats. Do you regard this as evidence that mice, rabbits and cats have souls that will live on after they die?
DAVID: The Jewish religion thinks so: Nefesh and Neshama, souls for both.
I didn’t ask about the Jewish religion. Do YOU think mice, rabbits and cats have immortal souls?
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Saturday, November 16, 2024, 21:32 (4 days ago) @ dhw
Immunity system complexity (C elegans, and also the brain’s fractal organization)
DAVID: Answered over and over. Close to 100% of all reactions automatic.
dhw: That is not what I am asking. There are countless threats. Do you believe that 3.8 billion years ago, your God provided the first cells with detailed instructions on how organs/organisms should respond to every one, and the right instructions are “automatically” switched on when the relevant threat materializes? If not, please tell us what part your God has played in designing all the responses (some of them unsuccessful) to all the threats.
Threat types are quite limited, for examples: starvation, attacks by predators, hot or cold climate changes. Coded responses are not necessarily endless, but limited as threats are.
A theoretical GodDAVID: Stop blaming God for choosing to evolve us.
dhw: I am not blaming God for any such thing! I am blaming you for coming up with a theory that you agree makes no sense. […]
DAVID: Early in these discussion it was you who said God should not have evolved us, but used direct creation.
dhw: I have never said any such thing. I have asked you why, if your omnipotent God’s one and only purpose was to design us, he designed and then had to cull all the species that had nothing to do with us,although you believe he can create species directly, without precursors (e.g. during the Cambrian). This is a way of questioning the purpose you impose on him. But since you insist that this is his purpose, it is you who criticise/blame him for using such an “inefficient” method.
You won't change my memory. I can't go back to many years ago like 2009. But you said if God can directly create as in the Cambrian why did He evolve us?
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organicsQUOTE: The Rosetta mission and others have shown just how ubiquitous organic molecules are in space, too.
dhw: I must confess I don’t understand what this “discovery” is meant to prove. If organic molecules are not living organisms, we are still back where we started as regards the origin of life. Or is this an indirect reference to some kind of panpsychism?
DAVID: No, all it means, as stated, is life was predestined.
dhw: I don’t understand that either. If anything, it means that with all the ingredients of life flying around in space, it was inevitable that one fine day they would meet and produce life. One up for atheism. But if you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient God, why all the rigmarole of billions of bits and pieces floating around for billions of years?
DAVID: You can't just let proteins fall together and get life! It takes careful design.
dhw: So why did your careful, omnipotent, omniscient designer create billions of organic molecules to float around for billions of years if all he wanted to do was stick some together in order to create us and our food? Back to square one.
How do you know if the molecules did not appear until 4.5 bya when the Earth formed? You infer right from the Big Bang.
Introducing the brain: consciousness as ephaptic fieldsQUOTE: "This single paper could take the field of ephaptic field science from the fringes of neuroscience to the forefront. Its findings regarding the speed and pervasiveness of ephaptic field effects may presage a fundamentally new understanding of how cognition and consciousness work." (David's bold)
DAVID: the bold just above expresses my feelings. It is an impressive suggestion. I must admit it comfortably fits my underlying dualism, as a field theory not fully tied to serial synaptic connections but fitting into fields.
dhw: I don’t understand how a process that depends in the first instance on neurons can fit your dualism. We should also note that these experiments were carried out on mice – and earlier on rabbits and cats. Do you regard this as evidence that mice, rabbits and cats have souls that will live on after they die?
DAVID: The Jewish religion thinks so: Nefesh and Neshama, souls for both.
dhw: I didn’t ask about the Jewish religion. Do YOU think mice, rabbits and cats have immortal souls?
I am not an expert in souls. I'll accept the Jewish view.
Miscellaneous
Immunity system complexity (C elegans, and also the brain’s fractal organization)
dhw: [...] There are countless threats. Do you believe that 3.8 billion years ago, your God provided the first cells with detailed instructions on how organs/organisms should respond to every one, and the right instructions are “automatically” switched on when the relevant threat materializes? If not, please tell us what part your God has played in designing all the responses (some of them unsuccessful) to all the threats.
DAVID: Threat types are quite limited, for examples: starvation, attacks by predators, hot or cold climate changes. Coded responses are not necessarily endless, but limited as threats are.
Why can’t you give a straight answer to a straight question? Do you believe that 3.8 billion years ago, your God provided the first cells with detailed instructions on how organs/organisms should deal with every threat etc., and if not, please tell us what part he played in designing all the responses to the threats.
A theoretical God
DAVID: Stop blaming God for choosing to evolve us.
dhw: I am not blaming God for any such thing! I am blaming you for coming up with a theory that you agree makes no sense. […]
DAVID: You won't change my memory. I can't go back to many years ago like 2009. But you said if God can directly create as in the Cambrian why did He evolve us?
Correct. It’s not a statement blaming God, but was and is a crucial question which you can’t answer. I have suggested that your illogical theory might be wrong. Maybe we weren’t his only purpose, or he couldn’t create directly, or he was experimenting etc. My alternative reasons for your God’s use of evolution all counter YOUR blaming him for being messy and inefficient.
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organics
DAVID: You can't just let proteins fall together and get life! It takes careful design.
dhw: So why did your careful, omnipotent, omniscient designer create billions of organic molecules to float around for billions of years if all he wanted to do was stick some together in order to create us and our food? Back to square one.
DAVID: How do you know if the molecules did not appear until 4.5 bya when the Earth formed? You infer right from the Big Bang.
I have no idea when they first appeared. But if you insist, why did your all-knowing, all-powerful God create billions of organic molecules 4.5 billion years ago to float around for billions of years, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
Introducing the brain: consciousness as ephaptic fields
QUOTE: "This single paper could take the field of ephaptic field science from the fringes of neuroscience to the forefront. Its findings regarding the speed and pervasiveness of ephaptic field effects may presage a fundamentally new understanding of how cognition and consciousness work." (David's bold)
DAVID: the bold just above expresses my feelings. It is an impressive suggestion. I must admit it comfortably fits my underlying dualism, as a field theory not fully tied to serial synaptic connections but fitting into fields.
dhw: I don’t understand how a process that depends in the first instance on neurons can fit your dualism. We should also note that these experiments were carried out on mice – and earlier on rabbits and cats. Do you regard this as evidence that mice, rabbits and cats have souls that will live on after they die?
DAVID: The Jewish religion thinks so: Nefesh and Neshama, souls for both.
dhw: I didn’t ask about the Jewish religion. Do YOU think mice, rabbits and cats have immortal souls?
DAVID: I am not an expert in souls. I'll accept the Jewish view.
Thank you for answering my question. Of course, your faith still doesn’t explain how a process that originates in neurons “fits” your dualism.
Our whole body has memory
QUOTES: "The ability to learn from spaced repetition isn't unique to brain cells, but, in fact, might be a fundamental property of all cells,"
“For example, consider what our pancreas remembers about the pattern of our past meals to maintain healthy levels of blood glucose or consider what a cancer cell remembers about the pattern of chemotherapy."
“The cell responses also depended on the time between pulses. These factors varied how strongly the memory-forming molecules were activated, and for how long – exactly what happens with our neurons. (David’s bold)
DAVID: What the non-biochemist must remember is everything happens is at a molecular reaction level. This is the automaticity I tout. Molecules do not think.
But the ability to learn “might be a fundamental property of all cells”. Molecules may provide information and may be activated, but something in the cell also has to process the information, commit it to memory, call upon the memory, and decide how to respond to the new information. This requires thought of some kind (not to be confused with human levels of thinking.) According to you, cells do not think. Many scientists disagree with you.
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Sunday, November 17, 2024, 19:12 (4 days ago) @ dhw
Immunity system complexity (C elegans, and also the brain’s fractal organization)
dhw: [...] There are countless threats. Do you believe that 3.8 billion years ago, your God provided the first cells with detailed instructions on how organs/organisms should respond to every one, and the right instructions are “automatically” switched on when the relevant threat materializes? If not, please tell us what part your God has played in designing all the responses (some of them unsuccessful) to all the threats.
Your question is the answer! The first cells came with survival answers. We wouldn't be here if they didn't.
A theoretical GodDAVID: Stop blaming God for choosing to evolve us.
dhw: I am not blaming God for any such thing! I am blaming you for coming up with a theory that you agree makes no sense. […]
DAVID: You won't change my memory. I can't go back to many years ago like 2009. But you said if God can directly create as in the Cambrian why did He evolve us?
dhw: Correct. It’s not a statement blaming God, but was and is a crucial question which you can’t answer. I have suggested that your illogical theory might be wrong. Maybe we weren’t his only purpose, or he couldn’t create directly, or he was experimenting etc. My alternative reasons for your God’s use of evolution all counter YOUR blaming him for being messy and inefficient.
All they do is humanize Him.
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organicsDAVID: You can't just let proteins fall together and get life! It takes careful design.
dhw: So why did your careful, omnipotent, omniscient designer create billions of organic molecules to float around for billions of years if all he wanted to do was stick some together in order to create us and our food? Back to square one.
DAVID: How do you know if the molecules did not appear until 4.5 bya when the Earth formed? You infer right from the Big Bang.
dhw: I have no idea when they first appeared. But if you insist, why did your all-knowing, all-powerful God create billions of organic molecules 4.5 billion years ago to float around for billions of years, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
He used them to create us and our food. 4.5 bya is not far from 3.8 bya when first life appeared.
Introducing the brain: consciousness as ephaptic fieldsQUOTE: "This single paper could take the field of ephaptic field science from the fringes of neuroscience to the forefront. Its findings regarding the speed and pervasiveness of ephaptic field effects may presage a fundamentally new understanding of how cognition and consciousness work." (David's bold)
DAVID: the bold just above expresses my feelings. It is an impressive suggestion. I must admit it comfortably fits my underlying dualism, as a field theory not fully tied to serial synaptic connections but fitting into fields.
dhw: I don’t understand how a process that depends in the first instance on neurons can fit your dualism. We should also note that these experiments were carried out on mice – and earlier on rabbits and cats. Do you regard this as evidence that mice, rabbits and cats have souls that will live on after they die?
DAVID: The Jewish religion thinks so: Nefesh and Neshama, souls for both.
dhw: I didn’t ask about the Jewish religion. Do YOU think mice, rabbits and cats have immortal souls?
DAVID: I am not an expert in souls. I'll accept the Jewish view.
dhw: Thank you for answering my question. Of course, your faith still doesn’t explain how a process that originates in neurons “fits” your dualism.
Consciousness as a free floating entity could settle into an ephaptic field.
Our whole body has memoryQUOTES: "The ability to learn from spaced repetition isn't unique to brain cells, but, in fact, might be a fundamental property of all cells,"
“For example, consider what our pancreas remembers about the pattern of our past meals to maintain healthy levels of blood glucose or consider what a cancer cell remembers about the pattern of chemotherapy."
“The cell responses also depended on the time between pulses. These factors varied how strongly the memory-forming molecules were activated, and for how long – exactly what happens with our neurons. (David’s bold)
DAVID: What the non-biochemist must remember is everything happens is at a molecular reaction level. This is the automaticity I tout. Molecules do not think.
dhw: But the ability to learn “might be a fundamental property of all cells”. Molecules may provide information and may be activated, but something in the cell also has to process the information, commit it to memory, call upon the memory, and decide how to respond to the new information. This requires thought of some kind (not to be confused with human levels of thinking.) According to you, cells do not think. Many scientists disagree with you.
New minor adaptations may be fully molecular alterations in reactions.
Miscellaneous
Immunity system complexity (C elegans, and also the brain’s fractal organization)
dhw: [...] Do you believe that 3.8 billion years ago, your God provided the first cells with detailed instructions on how organs/organisms should respond to every one, and the right instructions are “automatically” switched on when the relevant threat materializes? If not, please tell us what part your God has played in designing all the responses (some of them unsuccessful) to all the threats.
DAVID: Your question is the answer! The first cells came with survival answers. We wouldn't be here if they didn't.
More obfuscation. Did God provide the first cells with every single answer to every single question, or did he provide cells with the ability to work answers out for themselves?
A theoretical God
DAVID: Stop blaming God for choosing to evolve us.
dhw: I am not blaming God for any such thing! I am blaming you for coming up with a theory that you agree makes no sense. […]
DAVID: You won't change my memory. I can't go back to many years ago like 2009. But you said if God can directly create as in the Cambrian why did He evolve us?
dhw: Correct. It’s not a statement blaming God, but was and is a crucial question which you can’t answer. I have suggested that your illogical theory might be wrong. Maybe we weren’t his only purpose, or he couldn’t create directly, or he was experimenting etc. My alternative reasons for your God’s use of evolution all counter YOUR blaming him for being messy and inefficient.
DAVID: All they do is humanize Him.
Silly “humanization” mantra repeatedly demolished by yourself. See the “evolution” thread.
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organics
DAVID: You can't just let proteins fall together and get life! It takes careful design.
dhw: ...why did your all-knowing, all-powerful God create billions of organic molecules 4.5 billion years ago to float around for billions of years, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
DAVID: He used them to create us and our food. 4.5 bya is not far from 3.8 bya when first life appeared.
Not just “used” them. According to you he created them. Since you seem to know when, why did he leave them floating around for about 1000,000,000 years, and then use them to create and cull all kinds of life forms, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
Introducing the brain: consciousness as ephaptic fields
DAVID: It is an impressive suggestion. I must admit it comfortably fits my underlying dualism, as a field theory not fully tied to serial synaptic connections but fitting into fields.
dhw: I don’t understand how a process that depends in the first instance on neurons can fit your dualism.
(You have answered my question about animals and their immortal souls, so we needn’t discuss it any further.)
DAVID: Consciousness as a free floating entity could settle into an ephaptic field.
I’ve reread the article because I’ve always been intrigued by the fact that thanks to technology we can witness events that took place millions of years ago. Maybe the brain too can somehow produce “fields” that are preserved independently of their material source. NDEs and stories of ghosts are obvious examples.The article itself, however, only seems to be concerned with the speed of cognitive thought:
QUOTES: traditional synaptic firing speeds could not explain the speed of cognitive functions he had observed over the years in rabbits and cats.
"Instead the recent spate of ephaptic effects findings suggest a solid mechanism to explain these speeds. Our recent theoretical paper, building on these findings, suggested that ephaptic field effects may in fact be the primary mechanism for consciousness and cognition, rather than neural firing.”
Even if it is the mechanism, that doesn’t suggest "free floating" dualistic immortality.
Our whole body has memory
QUOTE: "The ability to learn from spaced repetition isn't unique to brain cells, but, in fact, might be a fundamental property of all cells..."
DAVID: What the non-biochemist must remember is everything happens is at a molecular reaction level. This is the automaticity I tout. Molecules do not think.
dhw: But the ability to learn “might be a fundamental property of all cells”. Molecules may provide information and may be activated, but something in the cell also has to process the information, commit it to memory, call upon the memory, and decide how to respond to the new information. This requires thought of some kind (not to be confused with human levels of thinking.) According to you, cells do not think. Many scientists disagree with you.
DAVID: New minor adaptations may be fully molecular alterations in reactions.
I’m not talking about major v minor adaptations. The question is whether cells do or do not perform all the above actions, which require thought.
ANT FOOD FORAGING
QUOTE: Researchers have discovered that in a foraging ant's search for food, it will leave pheromone trails connecting its colony to multiple food sources when they're available...
There is nothing new in this research! Even I knew about pheromone trails years and years ago.
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Monday, November 18, 2024, 21:23 (2 days ago) @ dhw
Immunity system complexity (C elegans, and also the brain’s fractal organization)
dhw: [...] Do you believe that 3.8 billion years ago, your God provided the first cells with detailed instructions on how organs/organisms should respond to every one, and the right instructions are “automatically” switched on when the relevant threat materializes? If not, please tell us what part your God has played in designing all the responses (some of them unsuccessful) to all the threats.
DAVID: Your question is the answer! The first cells came with survival answers. We wouldn't be here if they didn't.
dhw: More obfuscation. Did God provide the first cells with every single answer to every single question, or did he provide cells with the ability to work answers out for themselves?
They are automatic in solving issues. Cells make only minor alterations in their output.
A theoretical GodDAVID: Stop blaming God for choosing to evolve us.
dhw: I am not blaming God for any such thing! I am blaming you for coming up with a theory that you agree makes no sense. […]
DAVID: You won't change my memory. I can't go back to many years ago like 2009. But you said if God can directly create as in the Cambrian why did He evolve us?
dhw: Correct. It’s not a statement blaming God, but was and is a crucial question which you can’t answer. I have suggested that your illogical theory might be wrong. Maybe we weren’t his only purpose, or he couldn’t create directly, or he was experimenting etc. My alternative reasons for your God’s use of evolution all counter YOUR blaming him for being messy and inefficient.
DAVID: All they do is humanize Him.
dhw: Silly “humanization” mantra repeatedly demolished by yourself. See the “evolution” thread.
Only silly because you have no answer,
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organicsDAVID: You can't just let proteins fall together and get life! It takes careful design.
dhw: ...why did your all-knowing, all-powerful God create billions of organic molecules 4.5 billion years ago to float around for billions of years, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
DAVID: He used them to create us and our food. 4.5 bya is not far from 3.8 bya when first life appeared.
dhw: Not just “used” them. According to you he created them. Since you seem to know when, why did he leave them floating around for about 1000,000,000 years, and then use them to create and cull all kinds of life forms, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
God does not tell us why.
Introducing the brain: consciousness as ephaptic fieldsDAVID: It is an impressive suggestion. I must admit it comfortably fits my underlying dualism, as a field theory not fully tied to serial synaptic connections but fitting into fields.
dhw: I don’t understand how a process that depends in the first instance on neurons can fit your dualism.
(You have answered my question about animals and their immortal souls, so we needn’t discuss it any further.)DAVID: Consciousness as a free floating entity could settle into an ephaptic field.
dhw: I’ve reread the article because I’ve always been intrigued by the fact that thanks to technology we can witness events that took place millions of years ago. Maybe the brain too can somehow produce “fields” that are preserved independently of their material source. NDEs and stories of ghosts are obvious examples.The article itself, however, only seems to be concerned with the speed of cognitive thought:
QUOTES: traditional synaptic firing speeds could not explain the speed of cognitive functions he had observed over the years in rabbits and cats.
"Instead the recent spate of ephaptic effects findings suggest a solid mechanism to explain these speeds. Our recent theoretical paper, building on these findings, suggested that ephaptic field effects may in fact be the primary mechanism for consciousness and cognition, rather than neural firing.”
dhw: Even if it is the mechanism, that doesn’t suggest "free floating" dualistic immortality.
It only supports the living side of duality
Our whole body has memoryQUOTE: "The ability to learn from spaced repetition isn't unique to brain cells, but, in fact, might be a fundamental property of all cells..."
DAVID: What the non-biochemist must remember is everything happens is at a molecular reaction level. This is the automaticity I tout. Molecules do not think.
dhw: But the ability to learn “might be a fundamental property of all cells”. Molecules may provide information and may be activated, but something in the cell also has to process the information, commit it to memory, call upon the memory, and decide how to respond to the new information. This requires thought of some kind (not to be confused with human levels of thinking.) According to you, cells do not think. Many scientists disagree with you.
DAVID: New minor adaptations may be fully molecular alterations in reactions.
dhw: I’m not talking about major v minor adaptations. The question is whether cells do or do not perform all the above actions, which require thought.
It only looks like they do.
Miscellaneous
Immunity system complexity (C elegans, and also “our whole body has memory”)
dhw: Did God provide the first cells with every single answer to every single question, or did he provide cells with the ability to work answers out for themselves?
DAVID: They are automatic in solving issues. Cells make only minor alterations in their output.
So did your God provide the first cells with every solution, or did he provide cells with the ability to work out the solutions for themselves?
dhw: (under “our whole body has memory”): something in the cell also has to process the information, commit it to memory, call upon the memory, and decide how to respond to the new information. This requires thought of some kind (not to be confused with human levels of thinking.)
And:
dhw: I’m not talking about major v minor adaptations. The question is whether cells do or do not perform all the above actions, which require thought.
DAVID: It only looks like they do.
If something looks as if it thinks and acts as if it thinks, it is hardly unreasonable to suggest that maybe it thinks.
A theoretical God
DAVID: Stop blaming God for choosing to evolve us.
dhw: […] My alternative reasons for your God’s use of evolution all counter YOUR blaming him for being messy and inefficient.
DAVID: All they do is humanize Him.
dhw: Silly “humanization” mantra repeatedly demolished by yourself. See the “evolution” thread.
DAVID: Only silly because you have no answer.
The answer, repeated over and over again, is that you yourself have proposed a list of “humanizations” to explain why your God might have created life and us, and you agree that they are all possible, just as you agree that your God probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions like ours.
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organics
dhw: why did he leave them floating around for about 1000,000,000 years, and then use them to create and cull all kinds of life forms, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
DAVID: God does not tell us why.
And you can’t think of any reason why, but still you insist that you know his purpose was to indulge in his messy, inefficient way of achieving the one and only purpose you allow him to have.
Introducing the brain: consciousness as ephaptic fields
DAVID: It is an impressive suggestion. I must admit it comfortably fits my underlying dualism, as a field theory not fully tied to serial synaptic connections but fitting into fields.
dhw: I don’t understand how a process that depends in the first instance on neurons can fit your dualism.
DAVID: Consciousness as a free floating entity could settle into an ephaptic field.
QUOTES: traditional synaptic firing speeds could not explain the speed of cognitive functions he had observed over the years in rabbits and cats.
"Instead the recent spate of ephaptic effects findings suggest a solid mechanism to explain these speeds. Our recent theoretical paper, building on these findings, suggested that ephaptic field effects may in fact be the primary mechanism for consciousness and cognition, rather than neural firing.”
dhw: Even if it is the mechanism, that doesn’t suggest "free floating" dualistic immortality.
DAVID: It only supports the living side of duality.
Nobody knows the truth. If consciousness arises through the actions of neurons, that fact alone could be taken to support materialism.
The missing fossils argument; new very early Ediacaran
QUOTE: "This discovery reconciles a major gap between predictions based on molecular data and the lack of described ecdysozoans prior to the rich Cambrian fossils record and adds to our understanding of the evolution of animal life,"
DAVID: this is the first animal like Ediacaran fossil I've seen. Non e of the others seemed to be mobile. Also it appears de novo as do the Cambrian animals.
I was going to compliment you on your integrity in presenting us with articles that shed doubt on your pet theories, but your comment takes some of the shine off your halo. Nobody knows the true story of life’s evolution, but we are talking about life 600,000,000 years ago. It’s a miracle that ANY fossils have survived, let along been found, but you expect every single stage of every single species to have been recorded for us on our ever changing planet. Otherwise, you will claim that every new discovery must have been created “de novo”. How many remains of current individual species do you think will still be around 600,000,000 years from now?
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 19, 2024, 16:22 (1 day, 17 hours, 30 min. ago) @ dhw
Immunity system complexity (C elegans, and also “our whole body has memory”)
DAVID: They are automatic in solving issues. Cells make only minor alterations in their output.
dhw: So did your God provide the first cells with every solution, or did he provide cells with the ability to work out the solutions for themselves?
Yes, every major solution. Cells made minor adaptations as above.
And:
dhw: I’m not talking about major v minor adaptations. The question is whether cells do or do not perform all the above actions, which require thought.DAVID: It only looks like they do.
dhw: If something looks as if it thinks and acts as if it thinks, it is hardly unreasonable to suggest that maybe it thinks.
You forget design can make it look like thought.
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organicsdhw: why did he leave them floating around for about 1000,000,000 years, and then use them to create and cull all kinds of life forms, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
DAVID: God does not tell us why.
dhw: And you can’t think of any reason why, but still you insist that you know his purpose was to indulge in his messy, inefficient way of achieving the one and only purpose you allow him to have.
I 'allow' nothing. God chose to evolve us for His own reasons. We are the final step in evolution.
Introducing the brain: consciousness as ephaptic fieldsDAVID: Consciousness as a free floating entity could settle into an ephaptic field.
QUOTES: traditional synaptic firing speeds could not explain the speed of cognitive functions he had observed over the years in rabbits and cats.
"Instead the recent spate of ephaptic effects findings suggest a solid mechanism to explain these speeds. Our recent theoretical paper, building on these findings, suggested that ephaptic field effects may in fact be the primary mechanism for consciousness and cognition, rather than neural firing.”
dhw: Even if it is the mechanism, that doesn’t suggest "free floating" dualistic immortality.
DAVID: It only supports the living side of duality.
dhw: Nobody knows the truth. If consciousness arises through the actions of neurons, that fact alone could be taken to support materialism.
Neurons act as receivers of consciousness which can operate without the brain in NDE's.>
The missing fossils argument; new very early EdiacaranQUOTE: "This discovery reconciles a major gap between predictions based on molecular data and the lack of described ecdysozoans prior to the rich Cambrian fossils record and adds to our understanding of the evolution of animal life,"
DAVID: this is the first animal like Ediacaran fossil I've seen. None of the others seemed to be mobile. Also it appears de novo as do the Cambrian animals.
dhw: I was going to compliment you on your integrity in presenting us with articles that shed doubt on your pet theories, but your comment takes some of the shine off your halo. Nobody knows the true story of life’s evolution, but we are talking about life 600,000,000 years ago. It’s a miracle that ANY fossils have survived, let along been found, but you expect every single stage of every single species to have been recorded for us on our ever changing planet. Otherwise, you will claim that every new discovery must have been created “de novo”. How many remains of current individual species do you think will still be around 600,000,000 years from now?
For your edification read Bechly on fossilification:
https://evolutionnews.org/2024/11/fossil-friday-new-research-on-how-delicate-soft-bodie...
"Anoxic conditions in the burial environment would have slowed bacterial decay and minimized disruption by scavengers, while fine sediment encasement shielded delicate structures from mechanical breakdown. This unique combination of rapid burial and anoxia, possibly supplemented by specific chemical interactions in the sediment, allowed the Emu Bay Shale to capture fine anatomical details, adding a vital piece to our understanding of Cambrian ecosystems."
Miscellaneous
Immunity system complexity (C elegans, and also “our whole body has memory”)
dhw:[…] did your God provide the first cells with every solution, or did he provide cells with the ability to work out the solutions for themselves?
DAVID: Yes, every major solution. Cells made minor adaptations as above.
We were discussing the immune system. When the cells of the immune system respond to invaders, there are no changes to the organism itself. At most, the immune system might be said to produce minor adaptations. Thank you for confirming that cells have the ability to work out solutions for themselves.
dhw: (under "whole body has memory") The question is whether cells do or do not perform all the above actions, which require thought.
DAVID: It only looks like they do.
dhw: If something looks as if it thinks and acts as if it thinks, it is hardly unreasonable to suggest that maybe it thinks.
DAVID: You forget design can make it look like thought.
You forget that something that looks and acts like thought might actually be thought.
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organics
dhw: why did he leave them floating around for about 1000,000,000 years, and then use them to create and cull all kinds of life forms, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
DAVID: God does not tell us why.
dhw: And you can’t think of any reason why, but still you insist that you know his purpose was to indulge in his messy, inefficient way of achieving the one and only purpose you allow him to have.
DAVID: I 'allow' nothing. God chose to evolve us for His own reasons. We are the final step in evolution.
We are the latest step in evolution. Who knows what will happen, say, 3000,000,000 years from now? You refuse to accept the possibility that your God might have created life for any purpose other than us plus food. Hence the schizophrenic contradictions dealt with on the “evolution” thread.
Introducing the brain: consciousness as ephaptic fields
QUOTE: "[…] Our recent theoretical paper, building on these findings, suggested that ephaptic field effects may in fact be the primary mechanism for consciousness and cognition, rather than neural firing.”
dhw: Even if it is the mechanism, that doesn’t suggest "free floating" dualistic immortality.
DAVID: It only supports the living side of duality.
dhw: Nobody knows the truth. If consciousness arises through the actions of neurons, that fact alone could be taken to support materialism.
DAVID: Neurons act as receivers of consciousness which can operate without the brain in NDE's.
Neurons act as producers of consciousness in most research projects. I’m not against dualism. NDEs and other psychic experiences do support the theory. But you claimed that the article supported your dualism. It doesn’t.
The missing fossils argument; new very early Ediacaran
DAVID: [...] It appears de novo as do the Cambrian animals.
dhw: [...] Nobody knows the true story of life’s evolution, but we are talking about life 600,000,000 years ago. It’s a miracle that ANY fossils have survived, let along been found, but you expect every single stage of every single species to have been recorded for us on our ever changing planet. Otherwise, you will claim that every new discovery must have been created “de novo”. How many remains of current individual species do you think will still be around 600,000,000 years from now?
DAVID: For your edification read Bechly on fossilification:
https://evolutionnews.org/2024/11/fossil-friday-new-research-on-how-delicate-soft-bodie...
"Anoxic conditions in the burial environment would have slowed bacterial decay and minimized disruption by scavengers, while fine sediment encasement shielded delicate structures from mechanical breakdown. This unique combination of rapid burial and anoxia, possibly supplemented by specific chemical interactions in the sediment, allowed the Emu Bay Shale to capture fine anatomical details, adding a vital piece to our understanding of Cambrian ecosystems." (dhw’s bold)
Yes, it is a “unique combination”. We cannot expect billions of “unique combinations” to preserve every stage in the evolution of every organism that ever lived. Thank you for this support for my comments above.
Nature’s Wonders: clams have symbiotic algae
QUOTES: The heart cockles aren’t alone in channeling sunlight to symbiotic algae. Other marine creatures, such as giant clams, do this too ). […]
“'They’re using minerals in their shells to do this and not biological structures […]”
DAVID: A new approach from nature teaches us as once natural Velcro did.
I like these references to “nature”. The sheer variety of methods organisms use to ensure their survival suggests to me: 1) that life and speciation itself are one huge free-for-all, and 2) that the first cells, which gave rise to all living forms, must have been equipped with the mechanisms necessary for all this “natural” inventiveness. If there is a God who invented the mechanism for inventiveness, I could well imagine him being fascinated by the rich and natural variety of its products, just as we are.
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 20, 2024, 22:02 (11 hours, 50 minutes ago) @ dhw
Immunity system complexity (C elegans, and also “our whole body has memory”)
DAVID: Yes, every major solution. Cells made minor adaptations as above.
dhw: We were discussing the immune system. When the cells of the immune system respond to invaders, there are no changes to the organism itself. At most, the immune system might be said to produce minor adaptations. Thank you for confirming that cells have the ability to work out solutions for themselves.
"Minor adaptations" not solutions.
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organics
dhw: why did he leave them floating around for about 1000,000,000 years, and then use them to create and cull all kinds of life forms, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
DAVID: God does not tell us why.
dhw: And you can’t think of any reason why, but still you insist that you know his purpose was to indulge in his messy, inefficient way of achieving the one and only purpose you allow him to have.
DAVID: I 'allow' nothing. God chose to evolve us for His own reasons. We are the final step in evolution.
dhw: We are the latest step in evolution. Who knows what will happen, say, 3000,000,000 years from now? You refuse to accept the possibility that your God might have created life for any purpose other than us plus food. Hence the schizophrenic contradictions dealt with on the “evolution” thread.
And you are dead against recognizing evolution is over.
Introducing the brain: consciousness as ephaptic fieldsDAVID: Neurons act as receivers of consciousness which can operate without the brain in NDE's.
dhw: Neurons act as producers of consciousness in most research projects. I’m not against dualism. NDEs and other psychic experiences do support the theory. But you claimed that the article supported your dualism. It doesn’t.
All I said was this h=new field is a place where consciousness might fit in.
The missing fossils argument; new very early EdiacaranDAVID: [...] It appears de novo as do the Cambrian animals.
dhw: [...] Nobody knows the true story of life’s evolution, but we are talking about life 600,000,000 years ago. It’s a miracle that ANY fossils have survived, let along been found, but you expect every single stage of every single species to have been recorded for us on our ever changing planet. Otherwise, you will claim that every new discovery must have been created “de novo”. How many remains of current individual species do you think will still be around 600,000,000 years from now?
DAVID: For your edification read Bechly on fossilification:
https://evolutionnews.org/2024/11/fossil-friday-new-research-on-how-delicate-soft-bodie...
"Anoxic conditions in the burial environment would have slowed bacterial decay and minimized disruption by scavengers, while fine sediment encasement shielded delicate structures from mechanical breakdown. This unique combination of rapid burial and anoxia, possibly supplemented by specific chemical interactions in the sediment, allowed the Emu Bay Shale to capture fine anatomical details, adding a vital piece to our understanding of Cambrian ecosystems." (dhw’s bold)dhw: Yes, it is a “unique combination”. We cannot expect billions of “unique combinations” to preserve every stage in the evolution of every organism that ever lived. Thank you for this support for my comments above.
You are welcome.
Nature’s Wonders: clams have symbiotic algaeQUOTES: The heart cockles aren’t alone in channeling sunlight to symbiotic algae. Other marine creatures, such as giant clams, do this too ). […]
“'They’re using minerals in their shells to do this and not biological structures […]”
DAVID: A new approach from nature teaches us as once natural Velcro did.
dhw: I like these references to “nature”. The sheer variety of methods organisms use to ensure their survival suggests to me: 1) that life and speciation itself are one huge free-for-all, and 2) that the first cells, which gave rise to all living forms, must have been equipped with the mechanisms necessary for all this “natural” inventiveness. If there is a God who invented the mechanism for inventiveness, I could well imagine him being fascinated by the rich and natural variety of its products, just as we are.
I doubt He is fascinated, since He is the author of all designs. You kept presenting Him as human.