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

by David Turell , Saturday, May 17, 2025, 17:44 (3 days ago) @ dhw

The smelly hoatzin

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

dhw; 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.

What else is evolving into new species? Nothing. Evolution is over for anything new.

Animal minds: Insect tool use

dhw: 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.

There is no direct evidence which is why I suggested the insects had to be studied as were other animals like crows.

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.

dhw: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?

I think they look intelligent, but need testing for proof.

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.

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

Carefully coded cells look intelligent because the coding is from an intelligence.