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.

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.

Inventing God

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.

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.

DAVID: Accepting God created us, He must have some sort of interest in us. Anything deeper is guesswork.

dhw: As regards interest, I agree. And I also "accept" that if God exists, he must have wanted to create whatever he created. There is no escaping the past existence of countless species that came and went. Your guess is that these were the result of his inefficiency. Other possible guesses are that his interest lay in the unexpected results of a free-for-all, or in new ideas arising from experimentation, or in experimentation in pursuit of a particular goal (closest to your own guess – but targeted, successful experimentation does not = inefficiency.)

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.

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: As a Biblical scholar He offers no criticisms of God as you do.

dhw: Yesterday you told us he had only retranslated Genesis! A retranslation is not a critique of anything. You criticize your God’s inefficiency, but tell us that your views are the “accepted” biblical version. I’ve pointed out God’s murderous actions and self-centred wishes as presented in the OT. That does not mean (a) that I believe in God’s existence, or (b) that I believe a possible God is a sadistic egomaniac. I’m simply challenging your beliefs and assumptions in the light of (a) life’s history, and (b) the Bible’s versions of God which you say you accept, but then proceed to ignore.

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

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.

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

DAVID: Our brain must have a control of this sort, since we have such enormous intellectual capacity for imagination. I think lower forms of brains do not have this and it is a de novo development.

dhw: I’ve had to consult the Internet. Just to clarify: Dogs and chimps have their own fusiform gyrus. We assume they don’t have our level of imagination, but since this is only a matter of “signal strength”, clearly it is an evolutionary development of an existing part of the brain, as are so many of our “extras”. The term “de novo” could be misleading.

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

dhw: I have no doubt that initially our brain’s complexifications would have been devoted mainly to survival. But our very quest for improvement has led to a vast expansion of our knowledge, experiences and requirements. This expansion would have been implemented by the same cells, since our brains stopped expanding. and so "de novo" is perhaps a bit misleading.

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

DAVID: Opossums are part of a necessary ecosystem. Only God knows what is too complex for opossums. You obviously don't.

So God saved humankind by creating a stupid opossum and then teaching it to imitate a scene which it had witnessed for itself.

dhw: All organisms are and have always been part of the ecosystem which is necessary for their own survival. That doesn’t mean they are and have always been necessary for the survival of humans, and it doesn’t mean that they are all automatons obeying God’s instructions. You agreed last week that bacteria, plants and animals are possessed of “intelligent awareness” (given to them by your God)– and you even give examples below, though you try to avoid using such words.

DAVID: Conscious awareness is a different term to apply.

They mean the same thing. Intelligent awareness implies the ability to use whatever information the organism is aware of.

Animal intelligence: Cockatoos drink

QUOTE: "Now, they've learnt how to use twist-handle water fountains, which require a complex sequence of actions that we humans may take for granted.”

DAVID: It is learned behavior that must have come from observing people drink.

dhw: The ability to learn from observation is just one manifestation of “intelligent awareness”. And of course any beneficial form of learning will be passed on. For example, an opossum observes a wolf sniffing a dead body and walking away. The opossum remembers the incident when he is in danger of being eaten, and survives to pass on the good news. This hardly requires even the “complex sequence of actions” performed by our intelligent cockatoos.

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

How the heck do you know?

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.

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!

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.

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

dhw: […] What saves you from considering these possibilities? I quote: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” In other words, you twist reality to fit in with your preconceptions. (NB I am NOT saying that he is a sadist. I am pointing out that the biblical version of God is open to such interpretations.)

DAVID: Since we have no direct knowledge of God our personal God is what each of us invents. I start with omniscient, all powerful, and ignore all of the OT pronouncements you deplore.

dhw: You have “invented” a theory of evolution which ridicules your omniscient, all-powerful God as being a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer, and you have claimed that your invented God is the accepted biblical version but you proceed to ignore all those parts of the Bible that you don’t like. You agree that he may well have thought patterns and emotions in common with us (e.g. enjoyment, interest, desire to be recognized and worshipped, love) but reject any theory which arises from such common characteristics. Your invention leads you to one self-contradiction after another, but you refuse to consider even the possibility that at least part of it might be wrong.

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.

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: We interpret that God's love is involved, but Adler cautions 50/50, which suggests all discussions about God are guesswork, based upon individual prejudice.

They only become prejudice when they are beliefs presented as facts, to the exclusion of all other theories. That is your position.

DAVID: Accepting God created us, He must have some sort of interest in us. Anything deeper is guesswork.

As regards interest, I agree. And I also "accept" that if God exists, he must have wanted to create whatever he created. There is no escaping the past existence of countless species that came and went. Your guess is that these were the result of his inefficiency. Other possible guesses are that his interest lay in the unexpected results of a free-for-all, or in new ideas arising from experimentation, or in experimentation in pursuit of a particular goal (closest to your own guess – but targeted, successful experimentation does not = inefficiency.)

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: As a Biblical scholar He offers no criticisms of God as you do.

Yesterday you told us he had only retranslated Genesis! A retranslation is not a critique of anything. You criticize your God’s inefficiency, but tell us that your views are the “accepted” biblical version. I’ve pointed out God’s murderous actions and self-centred wishes as presented in the OT. That does not mean (a) that I believe in God’s existence, or (b) that I believe a possible God is a sadistic egomaniac. I’m simply challenging your beliefs and assumptions in the light of (a) life’s history, and (b) the Bible’s versions of God which you say you accept, but then proceed to ignore.

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.

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: Our brain must have a control of this sort, since we have such enormous intellectual capacity for imagination. I think lower forms of brains do not have this and it is a de novo development.

dhw: I’ve had to consult the Internet. Just to clarify: Dogs and chimps have their own fusiform gyrus. We assume they don’t have our level of imagination, but since this is only a matter of “signal strength”, clearly it is an evolutionary development of an existing part of the brain, as are so many of our “extras”. The term “de novo” could be misleading.

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

I have no doubt that initially our brain’s complexifications would have been devoted mainly to survival. But our very quest for improvement has led to a vast expansion of our knowledge, experiences and requirements. This expansion would have been implemented by the same cells, since our brains stopped expanding. and so "de novo" is perhaps a bit misleading.

The opossum

DAVID: Opossums are part of a necessary ecosystem. Only God knows what is too complex for opossums. You obviously don't.

dhw: All organisms are and have always been part of the ecosystem which is necessary for their own survival. That doesn’t mean they are and have always been necessary for the survival of humans, and it doesn’t mean that they are all automatons obeying God’s instructions. You agreed last week that bacteria, plants and animals are possessed of “intelligent awareness” (given to them by your God)– and you even give examples below, though you try to avoid using such words.

Conscious awareness is a different term to apply.

Animal intelligence: Cockatoos drink

QUOTE: "Now, they've learnt how to use twist-handle water fountains, which require a complex sequence of actions that we humans may take for granted.”

DAVID: It is learned behavior that must have come from observing people drink.

dhw: The ability to learn from observation is just one manifestation of “intelligent awareness”. And of course any beneficial form of learning will be passed on. For example, an opossum observes a wolf sniffing a dead body and walking away. The opossum remembers the incident when he is in danger of being eaten, and survives to pass on the good news. This hardly requires even the “complex sequence of actions” performed by our intelligent cockatoos.

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

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: There are two stages in the evolution of strategies: first the origin and then its continuation. All organisms require food. First step: some ants come across an obstacle that hinders access to the food, and it has to be removed. Is that so difficult to understand? We have no idea which ants will later have decided that some should forage and others should remove obstacles, but the division of labour is a clear indication of “intelligent awareness” and of course it becomes part of the overall system of acquiring food. Strategies arise out of need, and successful strategies then automatically become part of the overall system. But 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.

Nor do we have evidence they do know.

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.

I knew you would love the articles.

Humanization

dhw: You said yourself that he must enjoy creating or he would not do it, and interest in his own creations does not imply entertainment.

DAVID: Your God wants a free-for-all to be entertained.

dhw: That is your word, not mine, and I don’t like it. So let us consider the implications. You agree that at least the behaviour of us free-willed humans is a free-for-all. If he finds our free-willed, self-inflicted sufferings entertaining (just watch the world news for examples), then he is a sadist. Another possibility is that he’s got fed up with us and is no longer interested. (Of course the atheist alternative is that he doesn’t exist.)You claim that yours is the accepted biblical version of God. That’s even worse, since it is he who slaughters men, women and children because he doesn’t like their free-for-all behaviour. Even your beloved Adler only gives us a 50/50 chance that his God loves us. So what is the other 50? Either he couldn’t care less, or he hates us. One theme that never stops recurring in the Bible is that we must love God and worship him. And yet you believe he has no self-interest. What saves you from considering these possibilities? I quote: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” In other words, you twist reality to fit in with your preconceptions. (NB I am NOT saying that he is a sadist. I am pointing out that the biblical version of God is open to such interpretations.)

DAVID: Since we have no direct knowledge of God our personal God is what each of us invents. I start with omniscient, all powerful, and ignore all of the OT pronouncements you deplore.

dhw: You have “invented” a theory of evolution which ridicules your omniscient, all-powerful God as being a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer, and you have claimed that your invented God is the accepted biblical version but you proceed to ignore all those parts of the Bible that you don’t like. You agree that he may well have thought patterns and emotions in common with us (e.g. enjoyment, interest, desire to be recognized and worshipped, love) but reject any theory which arises from such common characteristics. Your invention leads you to one self-contradiction after another, but you refuse to consider even the possibility that at least part of it might be wrong.

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. We interpret that God's love is involved, but Adler cautions 50/50, which suggests all discussions about God are guesswork, based upon individual prejudice. Accepting God created us, He must have some sort of interest in us. Anything deeper is guesswork.

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

dhw: It’s no use telling us what books you have read if you can’t produce any arguments to refute the above or to defend your own theories. For instance, does Judah Landa provide us with biblical evidence that your God messily and inefficiently designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species irrelevant to his sole purpose? Has he found evidence of mistranslation in the passages of the Bible which describe God’s various murderous slaughters or his instructions to the Jews to do their own slaughtering, or his desire to be worshipped?

DAVID: My thoughts are unknown to Landa. He only retranslated Genesis.

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

As a Biblical scholar He offers no criticisms of God as you do.

Introducing the brain: real or imaginary

QUOTE: "The fusiform gyrus is involved in high-level visual processing, such as identifying objects and people's faces from their appearance. The study suggests that during imagination, the signal strength is weaker compared with during perception; this difference in signal strength enables the brain to distinguish between the two. That is, if the activity crosses a certain threshold, the brain interprets it as reality.”

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?

The frontal cortex.

DAVID: Our brain must have a control of this sort, since we have such enormous intellectual capacity for imagination. I think lower forms of brains do not have this and it is a de novo development.

dhw: I’ve had to consult the Internet. Just to clarify: Dogs and chimps have their own fusiform gyrus. We assume they don’t have our level of imagination, but since this is only a matter of “signal strength”, clearly it is an evolutionary development of an existing part of the brain, as are so many of our “extras”. The term “de novo” could be misleading.

Did the environmental challenges to our survival require such a brain, as per Darwin? No, it is overkill.

dhw: […] you still haven’t told us why you think your God specially designed a stupid creature who had to receive individual tuition in order to imitate what he may already have seen for himself.

DAVID: Opossums are part of a necessary ecosystem. Only God knows what is too complex for opossums. You obviously don't.

All organisms are and have always been part of the ecosystem which is necessary for their own survival. That doesn’t mean they are and have always been necessary for the survival of humans, and it doesn’t mean that they are all automatons obeying God’s instructions. You agreed last week that bacteria, plants and animals are possessed of “intelligent awareness” (given to them by your God)– and you even give examples below, though you try to avoid using such words.

Animal intelligence: Cockatoos drink

QUOTE: "Now, they've learnt how to use twist-handle water fountains, which require a complex sequence of actions that we humans may take for granted.”

DAVID: It is learned behavior that must have come from observing people drink.

The ability to learn from observation is just one manifestation of “intelligent awareness”. And of course any beneficial form of learning will be passed on. For example, an opossum observes a wolf sniffing a dead body and walking away. The opossum remembers the incident when he is in danger of being eaten, and survives to pass on the good news. This hardly requires even the “complex sequence of actions” performed by our intelligent cockatoos.

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.

There are two stages in the evolution of strategies: first the origin and then its continuation. All organisms require food. First step: some ants come across an obstacle that hinders access to the food, and it has to be removed. Is that so difficult to understand? We have no idea which ants will later have decided that some should forage and others should remove obstacles, but the division of labour is a clear indication of “intelligent awareness” and of course it becomes part of the overall system of acquiring food. Strategies arise out of need, and successful strategies then automatically become part of the overall system. But 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.

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.

dhw: You said yourself that he must enjoy creating or he would not do it, and interest in his own creations does not imply entertainment.

DAVID: Your God wants a free-for-all to be entertained.

dhw: That is your word, not mine, and I don’t like it. Nor do you, which is why you try to force it on me. So let us consider the implications. You agree that at least the behaviour of us free-willed humans is a free-for-all. If he finds our free-willed, self-inflicted sufferings entertaining (just watch the world news for examples), then he is a sadist. Another possibility is that he’s got fed up with us and is no longer interested. (Of course the atheist alternative is that he doesn’t exist.)You claim that yours is the accepted biblical version of God. That’s even worse, since it is he who slaughters men, women and children because he doesn’t like their free-for-all behaviour. Even your beloved Adler only gives us a 50/50 chance that his God loves us. So what is the other 50? Either he couldn’t care less, or he hates us. One theme that never stops recurring in the Bible is that we must love God and worship him. And yet you believe he has no self-interest. What saves you from considering these possibilities? I quote: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” In other words, you twist reality to fit in with your preconceptions. (NB I am NOT saying that he is a sadist. I am pointing out that the biblical version of God is open to such interpretations.)

DAVID: Since we have no direct knowledge of God our personal God is what each of us invents. I start with omniscient, all powerful, and ignore all of the OT pronouncements you deplore.

You have “invented” a theory of evolution which ridicules your omniscient, all-powerful God as being a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer, and you have claimed that your invented God is the accepted biblical version but you proceed to ignore all those parts of the Bible that you don’t like. You agree that he may well have thought patterns and emotions in common with us (e.g. enjoyment, interest, desire to be recognized and worshipped, love) but reject any theory which arises from such common characteristics. Your invention leads you to one self-contradiction after another, but you refuse to consider even the possibility that at least part of it might be wrong.

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

dhw: It’s no use telling us what books you have read if you can’t produce any arguments to refute the above or to defend your own theories. For instance, does Judah Landa provide us with biblical evidence that your God messily and inefficiently designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species irrelevant to his sole purpose? Has he found evidence of mistranslation in the passages of the Bible which describe God’s various murderous slaughters or his instructions to the Jews to do their own slaughtering, or his desire to be worshipped?

DAVID: My thoughts are unknown to Landa. He only retranslated Genesis.

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

Theism v atheism

dhw: Are you denying that it requires a leap of faith to believe either in a chance combination of eternally shifting materials, or in a sourceless, superintelligent superpower that has been lingering around in a nowhere for the whole of eternity?

DAVID: Of course a leap if you have the mental muscles.

I’m sure our atheist friends will swell with pride at your admiration for their mental muscularity.

Introducing the brain: real or imaginary

QUOTE: "The fusiform gyrus is involved in high-level visual processing, such as identifying objects and people's faces from their appearance. The study suggests that during imagination, the signal strength is weaker compared with during perception; this difference in signal strength enables the brain to distinguish between the two. That is, if the activity crosses a certain threshold, the brain interprets it as reality.”

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: Our brain must have a control of this sort, since we have such enormous intellectual capacity for imagination. I think lower forms of brains do not have this and it is a de novo development.

I’ve had to consult the Internet. Just to clarify: Dogs and chimps have their own fusiform gyrus. We assume they don’t have our level of imagination, but since this is only a matter of “signal strength”, clearly it is an evolutionary development of an existing part of the brain, as are so many of our “extras”. The term “de novo” could be misleading.

Humanization

dhw: You said yourself that he must enjoy creating or he would not do it, and interest in his own creations does not imply entertainment.

DAVID: Your God wants a free-for-all to be entertained.

dhw: That is your word, not mine, and I don’t like it. Nor do you, which is why you try to force it on me. So let us consider the implications. You agree that at least the behaviour of us free-willed humans is a free-for-all. If he finds our free-willed, self-inflicted sufferings entertaining (just watch the world news for examples), then he is a sadist. Another possibility is that he’s got fed up with us and is no longer interested. (Of course the atheist alternative is that he doesn’t exist.)You claim that yours is the accepted biblical version of God. That’s even worse, since it is he who slaughters men, women and children because he doesn’t like their free-for-all behaviour. Even your beloved Adler only gives us a 50/50 chance that his God loves us. So what is the other 50? Either he couldn’t care less, or he hates us. One theme that never stops recurring in the Bible is that we must love God and worship him. And yet you believe he has no self-interest. What saves you from considering these possibilities? I quote: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” In other words, you twist reality to fit in with your preconceptions.

Since we have no direct knowledge of God our personal God is what each of us invents. I start with omniscient, all powerful, and ignore all of the OT pronouncements you deplore.

dhw: But please note my next comment:

dhw: NB I am NOT saying that he is a sadist. I am pointing out that the biblical version of God is open to such interpretations.

DAVID: Current interpretation has softened that view to remind us of the relatively savage times in which it was written.

dhw: So now you can pick and choose which parts of the Bible you believe, and that can only mean that it is not the Word of God but is the product of humans writing in the spirit of their times.

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

dhw: It’s no use telling us what books you have read if you can’t produce any arguments to refute the above or to defend your own theories. For instance, does Judah Landa provide us with biblical evidence that your God messily and inefficiently designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species irrelevant to his sole purpose? Has he found evidence of mistranslation in the passages of the Bible which describe God’s various murderous slaughters or his instructions to the Jews to do their own slaughtering, or his desire to be worshipped?

My thoughts are unknown to Landa. He only retranslated Genesis.

Intelligence and the opossum

DAVID: Can't you see, or don't you want to see how complex the play dead concept is?

dhw: It is no more complex than the tests administered to ants and crows, in which they observe different choices and use their (perhaps God-given) intelligence to make the right one. In fact, the opossum’s test is even simpler: he knows he is too slow to outrun the wolf, and in my hypothesis has observed first-hand this possible way of escaping death. He doesn’t even have a choice. And you still haven’t told us why you think your God specially designed a stupid creature who had to receive individual tuition in order to imitate what he may already have seen for himself.

Opossums are part of a necessary ecosystem. Only God knows what is too complex for opossums. You obviously don't.

Theism v atheism

DAVID: The design evidence is irrefutable! A designing mind is required.

dhw: Same answer: You propose an all-knowing mind as first cause. The atheist can start with a stroke of luck which produces the first primitive minds (the very first cells) which over thousands of millions of years design ever more complex minds. Sourceless genius versus one stroke of luck followed by evolution. You shut your eyes and jump one way. The atheist shuts his eyes and jumps the other way. The agnostic keeps his eyes open and prefers not to jump. We may never know who got it right.

DAVID: On a fence as usual.

dhw: Of course. That is the nature of agnosticism. Are you denying that it requires a leap of faith to believe either in a chance combination of eternally shifting materials, or in a sourceless, superintelligent superpower that has been lingering around in a nowhere for the whole of eternity?

Of course a leap if you have the mental muscles.

https://www.sciencealert.com/cockatoos-figured-out-how-to-use-drinking-fountains-and-it...

"A crackle of sulfur-crested cockatoos in Western Sydney have figured out how to grab a drink from a park water fountain.

"We already knew this species of birds (Cacatua galerita) were a clever bunch: a few years ago, they figured out how to open the lids of wheely bins to feast upon the treasures within. And when humans tried to protect the trash from these brainy birds, the cockatoos simply adapted.

"Now, they've learnt how to use twist-handle water fountains, which require a complex sequence of actions that we humans may take for granted.

"Following initial sightings of the behavior across 2018 and 2019, a team of biologists led by Barbara Klump at the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior in Germany set up motion-triggered wildlife cameras at one park fountain, monitoring the spot across 44 days.

"In that time, the cockatoos made 525 attempts to drink from the fountain, using their feet, bill and body weight to get the water flowing, with a 41 percent success rate.

"These rowdy birds tended to visit the fountain at dawn and dusk, when, like parched school children at the end of gym class, they would queue up for a turn to drink.

"The birds used the drinking fountain regularly and extensively, not just on hot days as the researchers expected.

"'Alternative hypotheses could include that drinking-fountain water tastes better than alternatives, that its use represents contrafreeloading behavior, or that the placement of drinking fountains in open areas provides anti-predator benefits. These remain to be tested," the researchers report.

"'This behavior appears to be widely adopted in the local population, suggesting it has spread through social learning to establish as a local tradition."

Comment: It is learned behavior that must have come from observing people drink. See the video. They use their weight to open it.