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

by dhw, Saturday, May 17, 2025, 08:17 (3 days ago) @ David Turell

The smelly hoatzin

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

dhw: And the hoatzin is also here functioning, somehow proving that the best example of an inefficient system proves that the system is efficient. You can’t bear the thought that your God might have had a different purpose from the one you impose on him, and/or used a different method to produce the realities of life’s history. And you would rather ridicule your God than admit that your theory might be wrong.

DAVID: That we are an endpoint is an inescapable proof. You keep presenting biased items to say we are not.

An endpoint is the final stage of a process. I agree that our branch of the evolutionary bush is highly unlikely to evolve into a different species. How does that prove your theory that we were your God’s one and only purpose from the very beginning and therefore he designed 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with us and had to cull them, thereby proving his inefficiency? And he hasn’t culled the hoatzin, which is the “best example of his inefficiency”, and his inefficiency proves that he is efficient! You have provided the answer: he is “strangely” efficient. Inefficiency must indeed be the strangest form of efficiency ever to be found in any language. But you refuse to consider the possibility that at least part of your nonsensical theory might be wrong, and your God might not be the blunderer you take him for.

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?

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

dhw: Your statement was that it needs to be tested but it would not surprise you. I have no idea why sometimes you accept insect and bacterial intelligence, but regard it as impossible for the possum and the weaverbird.
And:
dhw: are you now saying that your God conducts experiments of trial and error, and not the animals themselves?

DAVID: God does not need trial and error.

The insects’ use of tools appeared to have developed by “conceptualization” (= autonomous intelligence”, but: “On the other hand, trial and error was a possible method of development”, which suggests the opposite. I pointed out that trial and error could only be conducted by autonomous intelligence. And so “on the other hand” could only mean that it was your God conducting the experiments. But perhaps, not for the first time, you didn’t actually mean what you said.

dhw: Sorry, but I really can’t follow this hierarchy of “conceptuality”.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: So the insect says; “If I harvest and modify this plant resin, it will in future attract prey which I can kill and eat,” and that proves how intelligent the insect is. But the possum says to himself: “The wolf walked away from a dead possum, so if in the future I’m in danger of being eaten by a wolf, maybe it will walk away if I pretend that I am dead,” and that could only happen if your God came and taught him. Your idea of “conceptuality” is incomprehensible.

Thursday: DAVID: It is my stated position above that I accepted insect intelligence.
Friday: DAVID: I said we need to test the insect. It may be God designed it.

You accept insect intelligence, but you need to test the insect to see if it is or isn't intelligent. But you never contradict yourself, do you?

Mind and cosmos

dhw: […] 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. ( David’s bold)

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

dhw: Thank you. You have now at last confirmed your support for the theory of cellular intelligence/consciousness, on condition that your God designed it. So please stop telling us that cells can’t be intelligent.

DAVID: No. He planned US, not our cells, to be conscious.

My theistic proposal that he invented cellular intelligence is how you think about God, but that is not how you think about God.