More Denton: Reply to David (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, July 27, 2015, 18:04 (3198 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: “Can be”. They can also be mental processes, just as our brain produces decisions, strategies, and inventions. You have already agreed that each possibility is as likely as the other, and yet you still exclude one because it does not fit in with your preconceptions.
DAVID: They are not preconceptions. I have explained my thought processes to come from agnostic to theist, and I have not seen anything since to change my mind or conclusions. -We are not talking about agnosticism and theism but about the intelligence of bacteria. There is absolutely no reason why intelligent bacteria should be a threat to your theism, but they are a threat to your anthropocentrism.-dhw: Pfeffer's bacteria could not have got to the soup without automatic perceptions and automatic movements, but what made them decide to swim through the poisoned disinfectant?
DAVID: If a bacterium feels the need to eat it will go for the food, all automatically. -Pfeffer's point was that if a bacterium senses poison, it will avoid the poison. That was the whole purpose of his test: a conflict of interests which required a decision. He also noted that they swam extra fast.-dhw; You are happy to consider research on automatic behaviour, but why do you ignore research on behaviour that suggests intelligence?
DAVID: Because, as I've explained over and over, one cannot tell the difference in single-cells organisms between automatic and making intelligent choices. I've chosen a point of view that I do not see refuted. 
[You make a similar point under “Climate change”; the fact that you alerted me to the work of Margulis can hardly be said to prove that she was wrong.] 
DAVID: If an 'expert' says it looks intelligent, doesn't mean it is.-Shapiro and Co do not say bacteria LOOK intelligent. They have concluded that bacteria ARE intelligent. Why do you put ‘expert' in inverted commas? Margulis was a microbiologist, Albrecht-Buehler was a professor of cell biology, James Shapiro is a professor of biochemistry and microcellular biology. I fully accept that experts can be wrong, but hey, can you not accept that they just might be right? -dhw: I agree that we are the mental pinnacle of evolution, at least so far. However, I don't know of any rational articles in which God informs us of his intentions, and some people might regard the fact that your thoughts have never changed as evidence of a closed mind. Ts ts! 
DAVID: And you can't reach any conclusions to leave the picket fence. Pot and kettles!-Agreed. But there are degrees of closure, e.g. between “I don't know, and so you may be right” and “I think I know, and you are obviously wrong.”