New Miscellany Parts 1 &:2: evolution, intelligence, eco (General)

by David Turell , Sunday, May 04, 2025, 17:30 (8 hours, 16 minutes ago) @ dhw

Zombification

DAVID: God allowed dog-eat-dog.

dhw: “Allowed”? If he created the whole system, the only way he could have “allowed” dog-eat-dog would be by creating a free-for-all and endowing the organisms (cell communities) with the intelligence to work out their own methods of survival. You are dragging yourself slowly but surely toward acceptance of Shapiro’s theory.

Shapiro's theory is a mighty stretch of bacterial abilities.

Mind and cosmos

QUOTE: “Eventually, I came to believe that intelligence is not a byproduct of the brain, but a fundamental property of the universe—a kind of informational ether that certain structures, like the brain or an AI model, can tap into.'” (dhw’s bold)

DAVID: In NDE's the consciousness appears to be separate from the brain.
And:
DAVID: We have no answer to the issue of consciousness with a non-functioning brain. We know it seems separate.

dhw" For the fifth time, the article is not about NDEs (in which consciousness generally remains individualized) but about the concept of intelligence as a fundamental property of the universe which we can “tap into”. I have asked if you understand this concept, but I can only assume that you find it as incomprehensible as I do.

It makes some sense if you wish to dip into Panentheism and imagine the universe as an invention in God's mind.

Theoretical origin of life

DAVID: No one knows why the universe is so huge.

dhw: This is your problem, because you insist that there has to be a reason, and your reason is that there is a God who created it for the sole purpose of creating little old you and me and our food. It is your reasoning that plunges you into a whole set of contradictions. The atheist view would be that there is no purpose at all. What is here is here, but it is interesting to find it how it happened. There is no why. From an agnostic standpoint, the latter is perfectly feasible, but the complexity of life itself suggests design, in which case any speculation concerning the designer’s motives should at least make sense against the background of life’s history, as you have agreed at the start of this post.

There are no contradictions in the view I take: God wanted to create us and protect us with a great food supply.

Whale’s contribution to nutrition

QUOTE: The contribution that these animals will make to solving our climate crisis through stimulating photosynthesis is under debate and their ability to balance the global carbon budget in the face of human-related emissions may be negligible.

DAVID: whale contributions from poop to pee to dead carcasses vitally support ocean life. All species make their contributions in many ways.

dhw: Thank you as always for this illuminating insight into Nature’s wonders. I’ve singled out the quote, because it’s so very relevant to the whole problem of human interference destroying the balance of nature. How ironic, that the most intelligent beings on the planet should be using their expertise to destroy the planet and themselves!

At least no more whaling!