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

by dhw, Sunday, May 18, 2025, 12:29 (2 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

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

As usual, you are trying to steer the discussion away from the absurdity of your God’s strangely efficient inefficiency, as epitomized – according to you – by the hoatzin, “the best example” of your God’s inefficiency. Whether evolution has ended is a totally different subject. I have agreed that our own species is unlikely to evolve into anything else, but it is perfectly conceivable that within the next few thousand or million or billion years some major natural or even man-made catastrophe could totally change the Earth’s atmosphere, which in turn would wipe out some species but result – as has always happened after major extinctions – in the formation of new ones.

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.

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

The direct evidence is their use of the resin to attract prey. I repeat:
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?

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

And yet on Thursday it was your stated position that you accepted insect intelligence. In any case, ants have passed all kinds of intelligence tests set by humans, and ants are insects.

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.

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

Disregarding your self-contradiction, perhaps I should reiterate what I see as the overall pattern. Yes, different cells serve different functions as required by their community (“carefully coded”), and most will behave automatically so long as they are working under normal conditions. If they stopped performing their allocated function, there would be no stability. This is what you seize on, while conveniently forgetting that when conditions change, cells/cell communities must also make changes, either of adaptation (same species) or of innovation (new species), or they will die. It is the changes that manifest cellular intelligence. But you attribute all the changes to your God’s preprogramming or intervention, with the 99.9% death rate the result of his inefficiency, made all the more damaging to his image by the fact that he designed them while knowing they were irrelevant to his purpose.