Evolution took a long time (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, January 07, 2017, 13:03 (2637 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The same old problem exists. In an animal with a brain we can study their mental capacities as I've presented over and over, from insects like ants, to crows, to primates, but at the single-celled level we still have the problem of how much automaticity is present, all or some automatic.
dhw: We study the mental capacities of ALL organisms by observing their behaviour and/or setting them problems. You even keep telling us that animals with brains also have to be programmed or guided by your God to produce their natural wonders, so the “problem of how much automaticity is present” applies just as much to them as to bacteria.
DAVID: My dog shows intentionality all the time, communicates with me in many ways, but his instincts operate automatically at all times. He always circles several times to lie down for sleep. This pattern, universal to all dogs, is interpreted as matting down the grass before lying from times before domestication.

Nobody is saying that organisms do not have instincts. We have instincts too. That has nothing to do with intelligence.

dhw: (And determinists will argue that the same applies to humans.) If an organism is able to solve problems that require intelligence, it is pure prejudice to insist that they CANNOT be intelligent just because they do not have a brain.

DAVID: With single-celled, you've agreed the probability is 50/50% as to which is correct.

I am leaning quite heavily towards intelligence, but I do not reject the possibility of “automaticity”. You, however, insist – despite your 50/50 – that organisms CANNOT be intelligent because they do not have a brain, and that I regard as pure prejudice.

dhw: You do not follow “all religions”, do you? What is your objection to the theoretical proposal that his goal was to produce a creature resembling himself, but he didn’t know how to do it and spent a few billion years experimenting? That gives you your evolutionary goal, and also explains the higgledy-piggledy history which is not covered by your own theory.
DAVID: My version of God, based on the complexity in the living beings He created, is that He certainly knew what He was doing.

If he was experimenting to create a being like himself, he would have known he was experimenting to create a being like himself. So once again, what is your objection?

DAVID: The organism freely tries a change and God approves or alters the change. The initiative starts with the organism, not God.
dhw: That suits me fine. How does the organism FREELY try a change if it does not have an autonomous, intelligent, inventive mechanism?

DAVID: But it may well have a mechanism with God dabbling as necessary.

We have been here before, but thank you for at last accepting the possibility that your God may have given organisms an autonomous, intelligent, inventive mechanism. I have already stated repeatedly that if he did so, he would have reserved the right to dabble.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum