New Miscellany 1 &:2: evol, intelligence, consciousness (General)

by David Turell , Thursday, May 15, 2025, 18:30 (5 days ago) @ dhw

The smelly hoatzin

DAVID: I never said hoatzin was/is a mistake.

dhw: You described it as “a best example of an inefficient, cumbersome evolutionary system”. Since you blame God for the system, and the hoatzin is an example of his inefficiency, I can’t see how it can be seen as anything other than a mistake. But if the hoatzin is “necessary” for the existence of us humans, then I can’t see why you would call it an example of inefficiency. One way or another, you are contradicting yourself.

Recognize the point I recognize evolution as a cumbersome but strangely efficient method of creation. Our inexplicable brain is here functioning.

Animal minds: Insect tool use

QUOTE: "An insect that harvests and modifies plant resin to snare its prey adds to a growing body of evidence that suggests we may be underestimating the cunning of invertebrate animals.”

DAVID: what is now instinct appears to have developed by conceptualization of a tool's use, the author's assumption. On the other hand, trial and error was a possible method of development. Just as we have tested crows to show they use thinking, we must test the insects in the same way to achieve the same level of certainty. Insect thought would not surprise me.

dhw: Don’t you realize that even trial and error requires conscious thought? How else would an organism know what to try and what fails or succeeds?

Not answered.

The answer is God designs it. It is my stated position above that I accepted insect intelligence

dhw: And if insect thought wouldn’t surprise you, why do you categorically reject the possibility that our friends the possum and the weaverbird might also be capable of thinking for themselves?

DAVID: But not as conceptually as knots in nests or playing possum

dhw: So the insect needs no help in designing the complexities of the resin trap, but God has to teach the possum that when it saw the wolf walk away from the dead possum, pretending to be dead might be a good strategy to get the wolf to walk away. Sorry, but I really can’t follow this hierarchy of “conceptuality”.

It all depends on the depth of the required conceptuality, such as managing the future result in favorable terms as a result of the immediate act..

Mind and cosmos

DAVID: I am not dodging. NDE's explain more about consciousness than all your theorizing. What is cellular consciousness? A part of your wish for cellular brilliance that doesn't exist.

dhw: I don't wish for anything. I examine the arguments. NDEs imply that our consciousness lives on even when our brain is dead. They appear to confirm the concept of dualism. But even if there is no known physical explanation, this still doesn’t tell us the SOURCE of consciousness. I simply don’t understand what you mean by “We use God’s consciousness to form our own”. What part of “us” reaches out to grab a blob and manipulate it to the shape we want? The sentence makes no sense to me. But God imbues our cells with consciousness. i.e. has invented cellular consciousness, makes perfect sense. Whether it does or doesn’t live on after death is a different issue.

What I bolded above in your thoughts is how I think about God. He planned us to evolve with consciousness.