Whether you are burning puddings,
Candles, midnight oil or joss sticks;
Whether you are theists, atheists,
Panentheists or agnostics;
Whether you are snug indoors
While the outside world is storming,
Or shivering in the icy blasts
(Produced by global warming?);
Whether you are terrified
By a nuclear Iran,
Or wondering how we’ll ever leave
Iraq, Afghanistan;
Whether banks and politicians
Drive you to depression,
Or you trust their "selfless" love
To end this grim recession;
Anything that cheers us up
Must be a good idea.
So Merry Christmas, everyone,
And have a great New Year.

His contributions were rather too prolific and technical for me to follow,
which rather put me off making regular contributions.
As you may recall my views were in support of Richard Dawkins.
I have been a long time Secular Humanist and my views have not changed much.
In fact I am probably even more antireligious.
My real interests are in mathematics and puzzles.
I don't suppose there would be much point in going over the same old arguments.
I am now 85 and not in the best of health.
I hope you are bearing up.
Best Wishes
George Jelliss

Dear George,

I’m very touched by your letter, and as you have posted it on the forum, I’d like to inform readers that George was among the very first to join in our discussions, and from my point of view his contributions were invaluable precisely because of his support for Richard Dawkins.

From my own position on the agnostic fence, I found Dawkins’ arguments (which spurred me to write the “brief guide” and then to launch this website) every bit as specious as those of his religious opponents. The fact that in recent years, David and I were the only regular contributors has resulted in a drastic narrowing of perspectives, since we were united in our opposition to Dawkins’ dismissal of the God theory as a “delusion”. We have then been left with repetitious arguments over the nature, purpose and methods of a hypothetical God if he exists, but the discussions would have been far richer if you, George, had been there to defend the case against God’s actual existence. However, I can fully appreciate your preference for maths and puzzles, which we know can provide us with definitive answers!

Like you, I have to admit that my views have not changed: I still remain on the fence as regards the existence of a God, but I can respect religious people’s blind faith in a benevolent deity so long as it brings them comfort and inspires them to respect and help others. However, I agree with Dawkins that religious dogma has caused just as much suffering as good. I fully support the principles of your secular humanism, which I feel meet all our human needs apart from that created by our curiosity about the unsolved (insoluble?) mystery of origins. Its rejection of the God theory leaves no alternative to having an equally blind faith in the ability of chance to create life, consciousness and the astonishing complexities that have led to single cells evolving into all the different species, including ourselves. That is a faith I find equally difficult to share.

I’m sorry to hear that you are not in the best of health. I’m even older than you, but am relatively fit and still able to enjoy life without too many restrictions! David was 96, and despite major physical handicaps, his capacity for research and his desire to defend and propagate his beliefs never faded until the very last day of his life. I am in regular contact with his wife, and will pass on your sympathy.

Thank you again for your heart-warming letter.

Wishing you all the very best,
dhw

It occurred to me tonight for no discernible reason to look at the Agnostic Web,
just to see if it was still going.
Only to find that your long-term colleague David Turell has died last month.
My sympathies for the loss of your friend and to his family.

His contributions were rather too prolific and technical for me to follow,
which rather put me off making regular contributions.
As you may recall my views were in support of Richard Dawkins.
I have been a long time Secular Humanist and my views have not changed much.
In fact I am probably even more antireligious.

My real interests are in mathematics and puzzles.
I don't suppose there would be much point in going over the same old arguments.
I am now 85 and not in the best of health.
I hope you are bearing up.

Best Wishes

George Jelliss

I can’t remember when or even why we first made contact privately, but it must have been in connection with some kind of unpleasantness on the website, because by 2011, when he sent me his first book, Science vs. Religion, the 500-Year War (published in 2004), it was clear from his handwritten dedication that we had already formed a close friendship. He wrote: “For David: My good friend and co-conspirator”. (I am also a David.)

The book itself was a revelation, because basically it disproved its own title. The focus was on scientific evidence for the existence of God, and even though it was one-sided, the breadth of knowledge and of reading was hugely impressive. However, it had made little or no impact on the wider world, no doubt because David himself was unknown to the wider world – unlike Richard Dawkins, whose book The God Delusion was first published in 2006 and caused a sensation. It had been the one-sidedness of Dawkins’ diatribe that had initially led me to write the Agnostic’s Brief Guide to the Universe – which begins with a critique of Dawkins’ book – and eventually to open the AgnosticWeb.

I mention all this, because it led to an extraordinary development in the relationship between the devout panentheist and the doubting agnostic. I persuaded him to write a sequel to his own book, taking into account new research but also as a counter to Dawkins. Not only did he welcome the idea, but he also asked me – his adversary on the forum – to be his editor. This was a remarkable compliment, and a tribute to an open-mindedness that was not always apparent in his posts! I can honestly say that it was a privilege to work so closely with him. The result was The Atheist Delusion. Science IS Finding God, published in 2013. In my view, it’s a brilliant defence of his faith, cogently argued and once more displaying an astonishing range of knowledge from ancient philosophy to quantum physics.

For followers of this website, it must seem inconceivable that the panentheist and the agnostic could attack each other so fiercely in public and yet remain close friends in private, but I can assure you that the battles and the friendship were both completely genuine. When my wife died in January 2014, David and his wife Susan flew over from Texas to attend the funeral (I live in Somerset, England). We’d spoken on the telephone, as well as kept in regular touch by email, but this was the first time we’d met in person, and this meeting revealed the deep humanity and generosity of his spirit, as well as a sense of humour that had perhaps been hidden by the seriousness of the subjects we discuss on the forum. The bond between us was now firmer than ever. We met again in May 2023, when David and Susan were going on a cruise but made a diversion to London, so that we could meet up and spend a day with them. (“We” includes my daughter Jenny.) By then he was in a wheelchair, but the spirit remained indomitable, and it was a deeply moving experience to see the tenderness with which Susan nursed him, and to feel the warmth that enveloped the four of us as we sat round a table for what we all knew in our hearts would be the last time.

As you can now see, David posted four articles, finishing at 0.52am 19th June (British time, but 6.52pm 18th June US time). I had just sat down to respond to them, as I did every morning, when I received an email from Susan: “David had a heart attack. He’s gone.” That indomitable spirit kept him writing to the very end, in spite of the sufferings that had been inflicted on his body. One can scarcely begin to imagine the shock for Susan, but perhaps the suddenness of the end was the perfect way for David himself to go. Whether his faith will now be rewarded, who knows?

The future of this website is also uncertain, because for the last few years it has only continued through our discussions and the ongoing education provided by David’s research. For the time being, though, I’ll leave it open, if only to preserve the memory of a remarkable man and a dear friend.

I will write more when I can.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2484822-we-finally-know-what-the-face-of-a-denisov...

"The Denisovans, a mysterious group of ancient humans originally identified purely from DNA, finally have a face.

"Using molecular evidence, Qiaomei Fu at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing and her colleagues have confirmed what many researchers suspected: that a skull from China known as “dragon man” belonged to a Denisovan.

"This fits with other evidence suggesting that the Denisovans were large and stocky. “I think we’re looking at individuals that are all [around] 100 kilos [of] lean body mass: enormous, enormous individuals,” says Bence Viola at the University of Toronto in Canada, who was not involved in the study.

"The Denisovans were first identified in 2010. In Denisova cave in the Altai mountains of Siberia, researchers found a sliver of finger bone from an unidentified ancient human. Preserved DNA revealed that it wasn’t a modern human (Homo sapiens), nor a Neanderthal (Homo neanderthalensis), but something hitherto unknown.

"Genetic evidence also revealed that Denisovans had interbred with modern humans. Today, populations in South-East Asia and Melanesia carry up to 5 per cent Denisovan DNA, which implies that Denisovans were once widespread in Asia.

***

"Fu says it was extremely difficult to get preserved molecules from the Harbin cranium. Her team’s attempts to obtain DNA from the bone proved fruitless. However, they did manage to get 95 proteins, which included three variants that are unique to Denisovans.

"Feeling that this wasn’t enough to be certain, Fu began testing dental calculus, the hard plaque that forms on teeth. This yielded mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited from the mother. It was a “tiny amount”, she says, but enough to confirm that the remains were Denisovan.

“'That’s an incredible result, and fantastic that they even tried,” says Samantha Brown at the National Research Center for Human Evolution in Burgos, Spain. “I think most researchers would overlook dental calculus for genetic studies.”

***
"It may be that the Denisovans changed over time. Fragments from Denisova cave reveal two groups: one from 217,000 to 106,000 years ago, and the other from 84,000 to 52,000 years ago. The Harbin cranium is at least 146,000 years old, and Fu found that its proteins and mitochondrial DNA matched the older group. But we don’t have confirmed large fossils of the more recent Denisovans, so we don’t know what they were like.

“'There’s just lots of different groups of these guys who are moving around the landscape, kind of independently, that are often separated from each other for probably tens of thousands of years,” says Viola. We shouldn’t expect them to all look alike, he says."

Comment: finally more good Denisovan evidence making them out as big bulky folks like the Neanderthals. That skull was mentioned here before, and now we know its relationship.

https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/evidence-is-building-that-people-were-in-the-am...

"The age of "rarely preserved" ancient human footprints dotting the landscape at White Sands National Park in New Mexico has been hotly debated for years. Now, a new study has found that these footprints really are around 23,000 years old — but the date isn't accepted by everyone.

"If the 23,000-year-old age is accurate, it would mean that humans were in North America around the peak of the Last Glacial Maximum, the coldest part of the last ice age — far earlier than archaeologists had previously thought.

"In the new study, the researchers radiocarbon-dated organic sediment in core samples from the site, which provided dates for the footprints as well as for the entire paleolake and river system that once existed there. The analysis was done in labs unaffiliated with earlier studies.

***

"The saga of dating the roughly 60 footprints goes back to 2021, when a study reported the discovery of the footprints and dated them to between 21,000 and 23,000 years old. However, a 2022 rebuttal took issue with using the seeds of ditch grass (Ruppia cirrhosa), a water plant, for radiocarbon dating. Water plants get their carbon from underwater, which can be much older than carbon from the atmosphere. This can skew the levels of carbon 14, a radioactive version of the atom, in the samples, making the plants appear older than they really are.

"So, in 2023, researchers redated the site with optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating, which revealed when quartz or feldspar grains in the tracks were last exposed to sunlight, and radiocarbon dating of ancient conifer pollen from the footprint layer — which proved to be another way to use carbon 14 without relying on water plants.

***

"Now, the new study offers more evidence that the footprints date to the Last Glacial Maximum, when the area was a vast wetland inhabited by ice age animals. The footprints likely came from hunter-gatherers who arrived in the Americas after traveling along the Bering Land Bridge, which connected Siberia and Alaska when sea levels were lower, research suggests.

"For decades, researchers thought the earliest Americans were the Clovis, who lived in North America around 13,000 years ago. But the footprint discovery and others are slowly revealing that Indigenous people reached the Americas much earlier than thought.

***

"When added together, there are now a total of 55 radiocarbon-dated samples of mud, seeds and pollen from the footprint layer that support the 21,000- to 23,000-year-old dates, Holliday said."

***

Comment: There have been Central and South American findings that human were there in the same time frame.

Our brain

DAVID: Repeat "Did the environmental challenges to our survival require such a brain, as per Darwin? No, it is overkill." Please answer.

dhw: You obviously did not understand my first answer. It is yes: whatever caused our brain to expand in the first place would have been connected with our survival (maybe a new discovery or invention or response to new conditions). The new cells would have continued to be used for these purposes for many generations, but there came a point (in relatively modern times) when our knowledge, experiences and requirements led us into fields no longer restricted to survival. And because our brain could not expand any further, the SAME cells complexified, whereas in pre-sapiens stages of human evolution, new cells were required to meet new requirements. Complexification of existing cells is not a “de novo” creation.

DAVID: Still with Darwin. God gave us our very special brain.

dhw: You asked about the role of survival in the formation of our brain. I have offered you a full explanation, and you have not disputed one single point that I have made. You simply go on parroting your hatred of Darwin and your belief in “de novo” creation, even though you believe in the theory of evolution.

Don't you realize you are spouting pure Darwin just-so stories? God made evolution.

Animal intelligence: the opossum

DAVID: Your opossum story would require some degree of repetition of observation to make the point. A single observation isn't enough.

dhw: How the heck do you know?

DAVID: From my own learning experiences. Are you all pure theory?

dhw: So during your career as a doctor, if your first patient died as a result of your wrong treatment, you needed a few more deaths to get the message. I wonder who invented the theory that you cannot learn from a single experience.

No response.

Learning as an MD requires more than one episode, medical biology is so variable.

DAVID: It is still clear each individual ant knows his role to play as part of a colonies reactions.

dhw: Yes, indeed, just as each individual human being knows his role to play in whatever job he is doing. Now please explain: when ants (and other creatures) solve new problems which test their intelligence, how does that prove they are not intelligent?

DAVID: Intelligent action from instinct does not mean active intelligence. The individual ant is an automaton.

Yes, of course, an action performed out of instinct does not require active intelligence. But it takes intelligence to find solutions to new problems, and every strategy must have had its origin as an intelligent response to a requirement. The same applies to individuals as to groups, and to insects as to humans. The factory worker’s task may not require “active intelligence”, but you have no doubt that he/she is aware of what he/she is doing. How can you possibly know that the ant is unaware that the removal of the pebble is essential for easier access to the food on which it and its colleagues depend for survival? You are accumulating massive piles of evidence that our fellow creatures are possessed of “intelligent awareness”, and yet you still insist that God must have provided a 3.8-billion-year old book of instructions for the ant and the opossum, or created them as stupid automatons which would need his personal tuition to show them how to survive.

DAVID: See new intelligence in animal entry.

Prairie dogs and curlews

DAVID: This is a careful learned behavior which has gotten to be instinctual. We are slowly learning how smart bird brains really are.

dhw: You can’t learn anything if you don’t have some form of intelligence. And yes, if you have learned that the cry “There are predators on the way!” means that there are predators on the way, you will instinctively grasp the fact that you are in danger and need to find a way to avoid becoming the prey. You, David, are slowly learning how smart birds and dogs and plants and octopuses etc. can be, but you still refuse to believe that ants and the opossum can also be intelligent. Why? Thank you for all these examples confirming animal intelligence.

DAVID: Of course they have intelligence.

dhw" So why do you believe that opossums and ants can’t possibly have intelligence?

Opossums have a degree of intelligence, ants are primarily automatons.

Animal intelligence in phytoplankton

DAVID: once again in a single cell, is it DNA instructions handling the problems or is something intelligent occurring?

dhw: “DNA instructions” is not the issue, since you insist that it is God who has created the instructions. Stick to the point: either God controls the phytoplankton or (theistic version) God gave them the intelligence to do it themselves.

God controls

Inventing God

DAVID: If my God created everything He must have controlled evolution!!!! What are you smoking? Major evolution is over. We are the logical endpoint with our amazing brain.

dhw: There you go again! If your God decided he wanted to create a free-for-all, he deliberately sacrificed control. The prime analogy is human beings, to whom you say he gave free will. You have also included murderous bacteria and viruses. He could have given the same “free will” or autonomous intelligence to the original cells, enabling them to make their own physical adjustments and improvements in response to new conditions.

You have ignored all of this response to your theory that he must have “controlled” evolution.

I do not believe in secondhand creation. God creates directly.

dhw: You stated earlier that evolution was over and you were then forced to retract such a ludicrous prophecy. Now it’s “major” evolution.

DAVID: By "major" I mean the appearance of new species, but we still see minor adaptations.

dhw: We have no idea what species will appear during the next three thousand million years.

If any!!!

The Bible

DAVID: I am using the accepted conceptual form of the Biblical God.

And:
DAVID: I told you current Jewish thinking softens the OT's God you reject as I do.

And:
DAVID: The 'stories' like the Flood are just invented stories to make a point. The current view picks and choses. Evolution as in the current mechanism is not discussed in the Bible.

dhw: So if your view of God is the “accepted conceptual form of the Biblical God”, most current believers apparently think the Bible tells us God is an inefficient designer, used evolution but designed all species individually, is all-powerful but has no control over the murderous bacteria and viruses he has created, has tried but often failed to provide remedies for the suffering he has caused, wants to be recognized and worshipped but has no self-interest, enjoys creating but does not create because he enjoys it, may have thought patterns and emotions in common with ours, but has no thought patterns or emotions in common with ours. And the Bible is not the word of God but the word of fiction writers who can be ignored if you don’t like their stories.

Long ago it was accepted that many OT stories were allegorical.

Introducing the brain: real or imaginary

dhw: It always surprises me that in spite of your belief in dualism (as opposed to materialism), you constantly support the theory that consciousness arises from the materials of the brain.

DAVID: Your usual confusion. The brain receives consciousness in various parts of the brain. This research tells us where.

dhw: So the frontal cortex is not watching the fusiform gyrus and is not telling us anything. That was the whole point of my question. According to your dualism, our consciousness is the immaterial "us" or self which receives information from the brain, processes that information, and directs the brain accordingly. How else could “we” (our conscious self) live on after death, as you believe from your study of NDEs? And of course, you may be right. But you keep contradicting yourself.

DAVID: Your interpretation creates your confusion. The whole brain works as usual while receiving consciousness in various special parts. Still pure dualism.

dhw; What are the “usual” workings of the brain? According to the article, the activity of the fusiform gyrus shows “us” which of its images is real and which is imaginary, and you say the frontal cortex passes the information on to “us”. How can it pass the information on to “us” if it is not conscious of what it is passing on, and who or what is “us”? In other words, if the different parts of the material brain don’t know what they’re doing because they only receive consciousness, what is their work in a) the production and b) the awareness of real and imaginary images?

In the receiver view the brain receives a workable consciousness, but also receives stimuli from without to interpret. The research us just locating where the action happens.

Continued in Part Two

DAVID: Repeat "Did the environmental challenges to our survival require such a brain, as per Darwin? No, it is overkill." Please answer.

dhw: You obviously did not understand my first answer. It is yes: whatever caused our brain to expand in the first place would have been connected with our survival (maybe a new discovery or invention or response to new conditions). The new cells would have continued to be used for these purposes for many generations, but there came a point (in relatively modern times) when our knowledge, experiences and requirements led us into fields no longer restricted to survival. And because our brain could not expand any further, the SAME cells complexified, whereas in pre-sapiens stages of human evolution, new cells were required to meet new requirements. Complexification of existing cells is not a “de novo” creation.

DAVID: Still with Darwin. God gave us our very special brain.

You asked about the role of survival in the formation of our brain. I have offered you a full explanation, and you have not disputed one single point that I have made. You simply go on parroting your hatred of Darwin and your belief in “de novo” creation, even though you believe in the theory of evolution.

Animal intelligence: the opossum

DAVID: Your opossum story would require some degree of repetition of observation to make the point. A single observation isn't enough.

dhw: How the heck do you know?

DAVID: From my own learning experiences. Are you all pure theory?

dhw: So during your career as a doctor, if your first patient died as a result of your wrong treatment, you needed a few more deaths to get the message. I wonder who invented the theory that you cannot learn from a single experience.

No response.

DAVID: It is still clear each individual ant knows his role to play as part of a colonies reactions.

dhw: Yes, indeed, just as each individual human being knows his role to play in whatever job he is doing. Now please explain: when ants (and other creatures) solve new problems which test their intelligence, how does that prove they are not intelligent?

DAVID: Intelligent action from instinct does not mean active intelligence. The individual ant is an automaton.

Yes, of course, an action performed out of instinct does not require active intelligence. But it takes intelligence to find solutions to new problems, and every strategy must have had its origin as an intelligent response to a requirement. The same applies to individuals as to groups, and to insects as to humans. The factory worker’s task may not require “active intelligence”, but you have no doubt that he/she is aware of what he/she is doing. How can you possibly know that the ant is unaware that the removal of the pebble is essential for easier access to the food on which it and its colleagues depend for survival? You are accumulating massive piles of evidence that our fellow creatures are possessed of “intelligent awareness”, and yet you still insist that God must have provided a 3.8-billion-year old book of instructions for the ant and the opossum, or created them as stupid automatons which would need his personal tuition to show them how to survive.

DAVID: See new intelligence in animal entry.

Prairie dogs and curlews

DAVID: This is a careful learned behavior which has gotten to be instinctual. We are slowly learning how smart bird brains really are.

dhw: You can’t learn anything if you don’t have some form of intelligence. And yes, if you have learned that the cry “There are predators on the way!” means that there are predators on the way, you will instinctively grasp the fact that you are in danger and need to find a way to avoid becoming the prey. You, David, are slowly learning how smart birds and dogs and plants and octopuses etc. can be, but you still refuse to believe that ants and the opossum can also be intelligent. Why? Thank you for all these examples confirming animal intelligence.

DAVID: Of course they have intelligence.

So why do you believe that opossums and ants can’t possibly have intelligence?

Animal intelligence in phytoplankton

DAVID: once again in a single cell, is it DNA instructions handling the problems or is something intelligent occurring?

“DNA instructions” is not the issue, since you insist that it is God who has created the instructions. Stick to the point: either God controls the phytoplankton or (theistic version) God gave them the intelligence to do it themselves.

DAVID: If my God created everything He must have controlled evolution!!!! What are you smoking? Major evolution is over. We are the logical endpoint with our amazing brain.

dhw: There you go again! If your God decided he wanted to create a free-for-all, he deliberately sacrificed control. The prime analogy is human beings, to whom you say he gave free will. You have also included murderous bacteria and viruses. He could have given the same “free will” or autonomous intelligence to the original cells, enabling them to make their own physical adjustments and improvements in response to new conditions.

You have ignored all of this response to your theory that he must have “controlled” evolution.

dhw: You stated earlier that evolution was over and you were then forced to retract such a ludicrous prophecy. Now it’s “major” evolution.

DAVID: By "major" I mean the appearance of new species, but we still see minor adaptations.

We have no idea what species will appear during the next three thousand million years.

dhw: That still doesn’t mean that your messy, cumbersome, inefficient version of God started out with the one and only purpose of designing us plus food, and therefore designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with us. I don’t smoke. But I do offer alternatives, which you reject on the grounds that they endow him with thought patterns and emotions like ours, although you agree that he may well have thought patterns and emotions like ours.

DAVID: Your humanized God has no comparison to my God who does not need entertainment or experimentation. He does not change His mind or suddenly have new ideas like yours. I agree He and we may mimic each other. That is a whole different level of comparison.

Of course my alternatives are different to your illogically messy theory about your inefficient God’s purpose and method! They are also different from the distorted version you present: I have rejected the word “entertainment” in favour of your own term “enjoyment”, and I have never said he changes his mind. Nor do I even say we mimic each other. It is perfectly conceivable that the creator will endow his creations with some of his own characteristics. And even you have acknowledged that my alternatives fit in logically with the known history of life. Your focus on “humanization” is your sole objection, and it has long since been discredited. Do you really want me to repeat the details?

The Bible

DAVID: I am using the accepted conceptual form of the Biblical God.

And:
DAVID: I told you current Jewish thinking softens the OT's God you reject as I do.

And:
DAVID: The 'stories' like the Flood are just invented stories to make a point. The current view picks and choses. Evolution as in the current mechanism is not discussed in the Bible.

So if your view of God is the “accepted conceptual form of the Biblical God”, most current believers apparently think the Bible tells us God is an inefficient designer, used evolution but designed all species individually, is all-powerful but has no control over the murderous bacteria and viruses he has created, has tried but often failed to provide remedies for the suffering he has caused, wants to be recognized and worshipped but has no self-interest, enjoys creating but does not create because he enjoys it, may have thought patterns and emotions in common with ours, but has no thought patterns or emotions in common with ours. And the Bible is not the word of God but the word of fiction writers who can be ignored if you don’t like their stories.

Introducing the brain: real or imaginary

dhw: It always surprises me that in spite of your belief in dualism (as opposed to materialism), you constantly support the theory that consciousness arises from the materials of the brain.

DAVID: Your usual confusion. The brain receives consciousness in various parts of the brain. This research tells us where.

dhw: So the frontal cortex is not watching the fusiform gyrus and is not telling us anything. That was the whole point of my question. According to your dualism, our consciousness is the immaterial "us" or self which receives information from the brain, processes that information, and directs the brain accordingly. How else could “we” (our conscious self) live on after death, as you believe from your study of NDEs? And of course, you may be right. But you keep contradicting yourself.

DAVID: Your interpretation creates your confusion. The whole brain works as usual while receiving consciousness in various special parts. Still pure dualism.

What are the “usual” workings of the brain? According to the article, the activity of the fusiform gyrus shows “us” which of its images is real and which is imaginary, and you say the frontal cortex passes the information on to “us”. How can it pass the information on to “us” if it is not conscious of what it is passing on, and who or what is “us”? In other words, if the different parts of the material brain don’t know what they’re doing because they only receive consciousness, what is their work in a) the production and b) the awareness of real and imaginary images?

Continued in Part Two

https://phys.org/news/2025-06-stocking-snacks-phytoplankton-future.html?utm_source=nwle...

"Single-cell plants called phytoplankton have a surprising way of remembering conditions in the past to help jump-start their growth in the future, but no one is sure exactly how they do this.

"Researchers,... detail their mechanistic theory of how this phenomenon, known as phenotypic memory, works in phytoplankton in their paper published in PNAS.

"Though small, phytoplankton are hugely important because they make about as much oxygen globally as all of the oxygen-producers we usually think of like trees and grasses, says Kremer.

***

"'We grew the phytoplankton in test tubes at different temperatures and then manipulated their past and present conditions by moving the test tubes to different places along that block," Kremer explains. "Then we measure their growth by looking at how much biomass accumulated over time."

"In the paper, lead author Anderson detailed the development of a mathematical theory to describe the mechanism of phenotypic memory. He also compared the experimental data to the theoretical model and Kremer says they were excited by how closely the relatively simple model captured the data they collected in the lab.

***

"They found that the ability to store nutrients for future biomass production is integral and determines how quickly phytoplankton can grow.

"'The easiest analogy we've come up with for this is, if you think about a phytoplankton growing in water that's fairly cold, its ability to grow is fundamentally limited by temperature and its cellular machinery for growth," says Kremer.

"'But, for a lot of these phytoplankton, while they're not growing very quickly, they are still able to take up and store extra nutrients from their environment. It's like stocking up on snacks and then, if their environment warms up, the temperature is no longer limiting how quickly they can grow, and they've got a ton of snacks, so it supercharges their growth for a period of time."

"After faster growth in warmer conditions, the phytoplankton's growth eventually slows down. Once temperatures drop again, their growth also slows since they have run out of snacks.

"'In some instances, we observe phytoplankton being able to perform Herculean feats for a few days. Even though brief, such instances may be matters of life or death for these organisms. For example, our results indicate phenotypic memory can mitigate the downsides of high temperature stress if heat waves are initiated from cool starting conditions," says Fey.

"'This nutrient storage or how many snacks they have on hand is a way of carrying over past information about their environmental exposure that then influences how they're behaving at any given moment in time," says Kremer.

"To further explore this mechanism, the next steps include measuring the quantities of different nutrients stored over time, says Kremer.

***

"'We think it's likely to be a general mechanism for different phytoplankton, but we'd like to expand how this data is collected. I also think the theory suggests many different things we can now look for in terms of what is happening physiologically within these cells to figure out if it's the storage of nitrogen or phosphorus, or some other nutrient that drives these patterns."

Comment: once again in a single cell, is it DNA instructions handling the problems or is something intelligent occurring?

Inventing God

DAVID: If my God created everything He must have controlled evolution!!!! What are you smoking? Major evolution is over. We are the logical endpoint with our amazing brain.

dhw: There you go again! If your God decided he wanted to create a free-for-all, he deliberately sacrificed control. The prime analogy is human beings, to whom you say he gave free will. You have also included murderous bacteria and viruses. He could have given the same “free will” or autonomous intelligence to the original cells, enabling them to make their own physical adjustments and improvements in response to new conditions. You stated earlier that evolution was over and you were then forced to retract such a ludicrous prophecy. Now it’s “major” evolution.

By "major" I mean the appearance of new species, but we still see minor adaptations.

dhw: That still doesn’t mean that your messy, cumbersome, inefficient version of God started out with the one and only purpose of designing us plus food, and therefore designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with us. I don’t smoke. But I do offer alternatives, which you reject on the grounds that they endow him with thought patterns and emotions like ours, although you agree that he may well have thought patterns and emotions like ours.

Your humanized God has no comparison to my God who does not need entertainment or experimentation. He does not change His mind or suddenly have new ideas like yours. I agree He and we may mimic each other. That is a whole different level of comparison.

The Bible

DAVID: I am using the accepted conceptual form of the Biblical God.

And:
DAVID: I use the interpretation in the book: "In the beginning of" by Judah Landa, 2004, 178 pgs.

dhw: Since he offers no support for your theories, why did you even mention him?

DAVID: I told you current Jewish thinking softens the OT's God you reject as I do.

dhw: And you told us that Landa only retranslated Genesis. Are you now telling us that current Jewish thinking excludes the Flood, the commandments to kill non-Jews, and the constant demand for worship? Does it pick and choose which parts of the Bible are God’s word? And please tell us which parts of the Bible you are using to inform us about your illogical and insulting theory of evolution, or about your God’s inability to control the murderous bacteria and viruses he created.

The 'stories' like the Flood are just invented stories to make a point. The current view picks and choses. Evolution as in the current mechanism is not discussed in the Bible.

Introducing the brain: real or imaginary

dhw: I’d have thought it was obvious that the “real” level processes information from outside, and no such process is needed for the “imaginary” level. But which part of the brain is watching the fusiform gyrus to tell us that it’s working at different levels?

DAVID: The frontal cortex.

dhw: It always surprises me that in spite of your belief in dualism (as opposed to materialism), you constantly support the theory that consciousness arises from the materials of the brain.

DAVID: Your usual confusion. The brain receives consciousness in various parts of the brain. This research tells us where.

dhw: So the frontal cortex is not watching the fusiform gyrus and is not telling us anything. That was the whole point of my question. According to your dualism, our consciousness is the immaterial "us" or self which receives information from the brain, processes that information, and directs the brain accordingly. How else could “we” (our conscious self) live on after death, as you believe from your study of NDEs? And of course, you may be right. But you keep contradicting yourself.

Your interpretation creates your confusion. The whole brain works as usual while receiving consciousness in various special parts. Still pure dualism.

DAVID: Repeat "Did the environmental challenges to our survival require such a brain, as per Darwin? No, it is overkill." Please answer.[/i]

dhw: You obviously did not understand my first answer. It is yes: whatever caused our brain to expand in the first place would have been connected with our survival (maybe a new discovery or invention or response to new conditions). The new cells would have continued to be used for these purposes for many generations, but there came a point (in relatively modern times) when our knowledge, experiences and requirements led us into fields no longer restricted to survival. And because our brain could not expand any further, the SAME cells complexified, whereas in pre-sapiens stages of human evolution, new cells were required to meet new requirements. Complexification of existing cells is not a “de novo” creation.

Still with Darwin. God gave us our very special brain.

Animal intelligence: the opossum

DAVID: Your opossum story would require some degree of repetition of observation to make the point. A single observation isn't enough.

dhw: How the heck do you know?

DAVID: From my own learning experiences. Are you all pure theory?

DAVID: It is still clear each individual ant knows his role to play as part of a colonies reactions.

dhw: Yes, indeed, just as each individual human being knows his role to play in whatever job he is doing. Now please explain: when ants (and other creatures) solve new problems designed to test their intelligence, how does that prove they are not intelligent?

Intelligent action from instinct does not mean active intelligence. The individual ant is an automaton.

DAVID: See new intelligence in animal entry.

Prairie dogs and curlews

QUOTES: They bark to alert neighbors to the presence of predators, with separate calls for dangers coming by land or by air.

dhw: To protect themselves, the curlews eavesdrop on the alarms coming from prairie dog colonies…

Previous research has shown birds frequently eavesdrop on other bird species to glean information about potential food sources or approaching danger…

In this crouched position, the birds “rely on the incredible camouflage of their feathers to become essentially invisible on the Plains,” Dreelin said.

DAVID: This is a careful learned behavior which has gotten to be instinctual. We are slowly learning how smart bird brains really are.

dhw: You can’t learn anything if you don’t have some form of intelligence. And yes, if you have learned that the cry “There are predators on the way!” means that there are predators on the way, you will instinctively grasp the fact that you are in danger and need to find a way to avoid becoming the prey. You, David, are slowly learning how smart birds and dogs and plants and octopuses etc. can be, but you still refuse to believe that ants and the opossum can also be intelligent. Why? Thank you for all these examples confirming animal intelligence.

Of course they have intelligence.

https://www.sciencealert.com/insulin-isnt-just-made-by-the-pancreas-heres-another-locat...

"Your brain makes insulin – the same insulin produced by your pancreas. The same insulin that is not produced in people with type 1 diabetes and the same insulin that does not work properly in people with type 2 diabetes.

***

"Insulin can and does move from the blood to the brain. But local sources of insulin are produced in specific places to do specific things.

***

"First, what is surprising about brain insulin production is that there is not one but at least six types of insulin-producing brain cell. Some have been confirmed in both rodent and human brain, others currently just in rodents.

"One of the first brain cells shown to make insulin is the neurogliaform cell. These live in a brain area important for learning and memory. Most surprisingly, the production of insulin here depends on the amount of glucose present – a feature shared with pancreatic beta cells.

"Its not clear what this insulin source does. Based on the location, it may contribute to cognitive function.

***

"...one insulin producing brain cell might regulate growth. A 2020 study showed that insulin is made and released from stress-sensing neurons in the mouse hypothalamus. This is a brain area that controls growth and metabolism. It also has the highest insulin levels in the human brain.

***

"Hypothalamic insulin maintained growth hormone levels in the pituitary gland. This is sometimes called the master gland as its involved in making or controlling production of other hormones. Having less local insulin meant less growth hormone production.

"Then there is the choroid plexus. This is the brain region that makes cerebrospinal fluid. In humans, that is about half a litre of this clear colourless liquid every day.

"Cells lining the choroid plexus – the epithelial cells – make a nourishing broth of growth factors and nutrients to keep the brain healthy. Only recently was insulin production found here in mice.

"The choroid plexus secretes fluid directly into brain ventricles, the spaces deep inside the brain. This fluid flows around the whole brain, perhaps delivering insulin more widely.

"One place it does travel to is the appetite control centre in the hypothalamus.

A 2023 study in mice showed that genetic control of insulin production by the choroid plexus could change food intake. The hypothalamus was rewired by changing choroid plexus insulin levels. Insulin released from here suppressed appetite.***

"There is still much to learn about brain insulin production. For example, which insulin source came first? The brain or the beta cell? Hopefully it doesn't take another 30 years to find out.

"But given the strength of evidence of brain insulin production, it won't be long until our school textbooks are updated."

Comment: since glucose is brain fuel it is logical that insulin is produced there to metabolize the glucose. It produces a fail-safe mechanism. The concept supports the design argument.

DAVID: Your opossum story would require some degree of repetition of observation to make the point. A single observation isn't enough.

dhw: How the heck do you know?

DAVID: From my own learning experiences. Are you all pure theory?

So during your career as a doctor, if your first patient died as a result of your wrong treatment, you needed a few more deaths to get the message. I wonder who invented the theory that you cannot learn from a single experience.

Ant intelligence; colony actions

dhw: […] it is sheer arrogance for humans to assume that the individual members of the ants’ work force don’t know what they’re doing.

DAVID: Nor do we have evidence they do know. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: What do you think tests are for? If any creature is able to work out answers to the new problems which are set for them by humans and which they have never encountered before, then either they are autonomously intelligent or, according to you, your God pops in every time to give them the solutions, or he foresaw the new tests 3.8 billion years ago, and supplied the first cells with all the solutions, to be passed on to the individual animals, birds, fish and insects that are now being tested. Daft!

DAVID: It is still clear each individual ant knows his role to play as part of a colonies reactions.

Yes, indeed, just as each individual human being knows his role to play in whatever job he is doing. Now please explain: when ants (and other creatures) solve new problems designed to test their intelligence, how does that prove they are not intelligent?

DAVID: See new intelligence in animal entry.

Prairie dogs and curlews

QUOTES: They bark to alert neighbors to the presence of predators, with separate calls for dangers coming by land or by air.

To protect themselves, the curlews eavesdrop on the alarms coming from prairie dog colonies…

Previous research has shown birds frequently eavesdrop on other bird species to glean information about potential food sources or approaching danger…

In this crouched position, the birds “rely on the incredible camouflage of their feathers to become essentially invisible on the Plains,” Dreelin said.

DAVID: This is a careful learned behavior which has gotten to be instinctual. We are slowly learning how smart bird brains really are.

You can’t learn anything if you don’t have some form of intelligence. And yes, if you have learned that the cry “There are predators on the way!” means that there are predators on the way, you will instinctively grasp the fact that you are in danger and need to find a way to avoid becoming the prey. You, David, are slowly learning how smart birds and dogs and plants and octopuses etc. can be, but you still refuse to believe that ants and the opossum can also be intelligent. Why? Thank you for all these examples confirming animal intelligence.

DAVID: I assume, as you must, that any discussion of God accepts that He created our reality which means He controlled evolution, a messy way to achieve His goal, us. Recognize evolution has a directionality toward the more complex and we are the most complex with our brain.

dhw: It does not mean he controlled evolution! Nor does it mean that he started out with the single goal of creating us plus food. When will you stop presenting your view of a messy inefficient designer as a fact instead of the illogical and God-insulting theory of your own invention.

DAVID: If my God created everything He must have controlled evolution!!!! What are you smoking? Major evolution is over. We are the logical endpoint with our amazing brain.

There you go again! If your God decided he wanted to create a free-for-all, he deliberately sacrificed control. The prime analogy is human beings, to whom you say he gave free will. You have also included murderous bacteria and viruses. He could have given the same “free will” or autonomous intelligence to the original cells, enabling them to make their own physical adjustments and improvements in response to new conditions. You stated earlier that evolution was over and you were then forced to retract such a ludicrous prophecy. Now it’s “major” evolution. That still doesn’t mean that your messy, cumbersome, inefficient version of God started out with the one and only purpose of designing us plus food, and therefore designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with us. I don’t smoke. But I do offer alternatives, which you reject on the grounds that they endow him with thought patterns and emotions like ours, although you agree that he may well have thought patterns and emotions like ours.

DAVID: Back you go to a weak humanized God who must experiment, which experimentation gives Him new ideas! He must have a free-for-all to see 'unexpected results'. Not the all-powerful God I envision.

Not “must” but wants to – in contrast to your inefficient God who only wants to create us but, in spite of his omnipotence, “must” first create and then get rid of 99.9 out 100 species that have nothing to do with us. We have long since discussed your own “humanizations”, including enjoyment, interest, desire for recognition and worship, love. Do you really want to go over all that again?

The Bible

DAVID: I am using the accepted conceptual form of the Biblical God.

And:
DAVID: I use the interpretation in the book: "In the beginning of" by Judah Landa, 2004, 178 pgs.

dhw: Since he offers no support for your theories, why did you even mention him?

DAVID: I told you current Jewish thinking softens the OT's God you reject as I do.

And you told us that Landa only retranslated Genesis. Are you now telling us that current Jewish thinking excludes the Flood, the commandments to kill non-Jews, and the constant demand for worship? Does it pick and choose which parts of the Bible are God’s word? And please tell us which parts of the Bible you are using to inform us about your illogical and insulting theory of evolution, or about your God’s inability to control the murderous bacteria and viruses he created.

Introducing the brain: real or imaginary

dhw: I’d have thought it was obvious that the “real” level processes information from outside, and no such process is needed for the “imaginary” level. But which part of the brain is watching the fusiform gyrus to tell us that it’s working at different levels?

DAVID: The frontal cortex.

dhw: It always surprises me that in spite of your belief in dualism (as opposed to materialism), you constantly support the theory that consciousness arises from the materials of the brain.

DAVID: Your usual confusion. The brain receives consciousness in various parts of the brain. This research tells us where.

So the frontal cortex is not watching the fusiform gyrus and is not telling us anything. That was the whole point of my question. According to your dualism, our consciousness is the immaterial "us" or self which receives information from the brain, processes that information, and directs the brain accordingly. How else could “we” (our conscious self) live on after death, as you believe from your study of NDEs? And of course, you may be right. But you keep contradicting yourself.

DAVID: Repeat "Did the environmental challenges to our survival require such a brain, as per Darwin? No, it is overkill." Please answer.[/i]

You obviously did not understand my first answer. It is yes: whatever caused our brain to expand in the first place would have been connected with our survival (maybe a new discovery or invention or response to new conditions). The new cells would have continued to be used for these purposes for many generations, but there came a point (in relatively modern times) when our knowledge, experiences and requirements led us into fields no longer restricted to survival. And because our brain could not expand any further, the SAME cells complexified, whereas in pre-sapiens stages of human evolution, new cells were required to meet new requirements. Complexification of existing cells is not a “de novo” creation.

https://apnews.com/article/prairie-dogs-birds-eavesdropping-warning-0430300793f1f0e267e...

"Prairie dogs are the Paul Reveres of the Great Plains: They bark to alert neighbors to the presence of predators, with separate calls for dangers coming by land or by air.

“Prairie dogs are on the menu for just about every predator you can think of”— golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, foxes, badgers, even large snakes — said Andy Boyce, a research ecologist in Montana at the Smithsonian’s National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute.

"Those predators will also snack on grassland nesting birds like the long-billed curlew.

"To protect themselves, the curlews eavesdrop on the alarms coming from prairie dog colonies, according to research published Thursday in the journal Animal Behavior.

"Previous research has shown birds frequently eavesdrop on other bird species to glean information about potential food sources or approaching danger, said Georgetown University ornithologist Emily Williams, who was not involved in the study. But, so far, scientists have documented only a few instances of birds eavesdropping on mammals.

***

“'Those little barks are very loud — they can carry quite a long way,” said co-author Andrew Dreelin, who also works for the Smithsonian.

"The long-billed curlew nests in short-grass prairie and incubates eggs on a ground nest. When one hears the prairie dog alarm, she responds by pressing her head, beak and belly close to the ground.

"In this crouched position, the birds “rely on the incredible camouflage of their feathers to become essentially invisible on the Plains,” Dreelin said.

“'Those little barks are very loud — they can carry quite a long way,” said co-author Andrew Dreelin, who also works for the Smithsonian.

"The long-billed curlew nests in short-grass prairie and incubates eggs on a ground nest. When one hears the prairie dog alarm, she responds by pressing her head, beak and belly close to the ground.

"In this crouched position, the birds “rely on the incredible camouflage of their feathers to become essentially invisible on the Plains,” Dreelin said.

“You have a much higher chance of avoiding predation if you go into that cryptic posture sooner — and the birds do when they hear prairie dogs barking,” said co-author Holly Jones, a conservation biologist at Northern Illinois University.

"Prairie dogs are often thought of as “environmental engineers,” she said, because they construct extensive burrows and nibble down prairie grass, keeping short-grass ecosystems intact.

“'But now we are realizing they are also shaping the ecosystems by producing and spreading information,” she said."

Comment: This is a careful learned behavior which has gotten to be instinctual. We are slowly learning how smart bird brains really are.

Animal intelligence: Cockatoos drink

DAVID: Your opossum story would require some degree of repetition of observation to make the point. A single observation isn't enough.

dhw: How the heck do you know?

From my own learning experiences. Are you all pure theory?

Ant intelligence; colony actions

QUOTES: Among the tens of thousands of ant species, incredible "intelligent" behaviors like crop culture, animal husbandry, surgery, "piracy," social distancing, and complex architecture have evolved.

[…] in reality, individual workers don't understand the situation at all. This intelligent behavior happens at the level of the colony, not the individual.

Each ant follows simple cues—like fresh scent marks left by others—without needing to understand the bigger picture, yet together they create a smart, goal-directed outcome," (David’s bold)

DAVID: This shows the same aspect of colony member actions, automatic behavior creating a whole colony reaction. It is just like soccer or football athletic team efforts, but the human players understand the whole concept of what they are a part.

dhw: [...] the assumption that the obstacle-clearing ants don’t know that they are helping to acquire the food which keeps them alive (= the bigger picture) is totally without foundation. It’s well known that ants can even change their “careers” according to new requirements. We don’t know how the collective decisions are taken, but we social humans create jobs as and when necessary, and we appoint workers to do those jobs. Does that mean each worker becomes a robot? (Watch out, though, if AI takes over!) Ants are not robots either, and it is sheer arrogance for humans to assume that the individual members of the ants’ work force don’t know what they’re doing.

DAVID: Nor do we have evidence they do know.

dhw: What do you think tests are for? If any creature is able to work out answers to the new problems which are set for them by humans and which they have never encountered before, then either they are autonomously intelligent or, according to you, your God pops in every time to give them the solutions, or he foresaw the new tests 3.8 billion years ago, and supplied the first cells with all the solutions, to be passed on to the individual animals, birds, fish and insects that are now being tested. Daft!

It is still clear each individual ant knows his role to play as part of a colonies reactions.

dhw: I checked the article, and found that the conclusion was as follows:
"These ants thus provide us with an analogy to brains, where from the activity of the relatively simple computational units, namely neurons, some high cognition capabilities miraculously emerge."
I have always loved the analogy: ants provide us with a visible illustration of how cell communities work, even within our own brains and bodies. We don’t know the source of consciousness, but we do know that our own organs, like those of all our fellow creatures, function through intelligent cooperation and communication between the different cells and cell communities. I’m delighted to see that both this and the cockatoo article use the word “intelligence” in their headings. Please carry on.

DAVID: I knew you would love the articles.

dhw: Thank you. And do please carry on acknowledging animal intelligence instead of pretending that they are automatons following your God’s instructions.

See new intelligence in animal entry.