Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them? (Animals)

by David Turell , Sunday, December 13, 2015, 19:37 (3055 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: The problem is not what happens once an invention proves successful. We do not seek to revise or modify the programme that runs our heart, eyes, liver, digestion system etc. Once the proto-nest was built and approved of by natural selection (it obviously worked for the weaverbird), there would be no reason for it to change unless it was confronted with new challenges. Why was it built in the first place?-To answer your postulates, we only see fully invented nests, with their complex knots. This raises many logical issues: What advantage does such a complex nest offer the weaver? Egg protection? Many other birds do this in simpler ways with simpler nests. Was the entire nest invented before use? What the use of one-quarter a nest, if it was developed in stages? What advantage does it have for a weaver if it takes most of the bird's life? The simplest logical answer is they were given the design.-> 
> dhw: I agree that intelligence did it, but the question of preprogramming/dabbling versus autonomous intelligence (perhaps God-given) has been our dispute all along. And it is not the design argument that I am challenging, but your anthropocentric theology, which not surprisingly the authors of the book apparently do not deal with. -At least we agree intelligence is required. The anthropocentric aspect of evolution was not a point considered in their book.-> 
> dhw: I really and truly don't have the time or desire to go off and study weaverbirds' nests, but they are only one example of the great chasm between the argument for design and the argument for your anthropocentric ”arrow of purpose”, which under “A new synthesis” you admit you “do not fully understand” , which I would phrase as “it doesn't make sense”.-I do understand your necessary busy-ness. It is not just weavers, but the book has about 100 examples that make the point, Why do the migrating animals migrate as far as they do, and how did they figure out how to do it? If I see the many examples of design planning the authors describe, it is easy to make the jump that the 'illogical' arrival of humans was also designed.
> 
> dhw: I listened to the Noble lecture, which reaffirms our own long-held scepticism towards random mutations and gradualism, and the importance of epigenetic processes which you have frequently highlighted for us and which fit in nicely with an autonomous inventive mechanism. However, he says: “The genome is an 'organ' of the cell not its dictator. Control is distributed.” This runs contrary to your belief that any controlling mechanism has to be in the genome.-I'm sorry if I confused you. There are many layers of controls over gene expression which are technically not part of DNA as the genome. I've lumped all the controls together, and that is technically incorrect in my mental shorthand. The histones have controls, the ribosomes have controls, the telomeres have controls to name some of the complexities.-> dhw:I also noted Noble's admiration for McClintock and Shapiro - two champions of the concept of cellular intelligence.-I have the same admiration.