https://phys.org/news/2025-05-philosophers-scientists-collaborate-consciousness-percept...

:Corvids' eyes have incredibly sharp resolution that allows them to navigate while flying at high speeds and to find potential sources of food. Their hearing is excellent, perhaps unsurprising for songbirds, allowing them to even distinguish reliable from unreliable group members by assessing and remembering their alert calls.

"They also have a good sense of smell, which they use to help them find nuts and other food they have hidden. Unfortunately, we do not know how their smell compares to a lot of other animals, because there are not enough studies on corvids' sense of smell yet.

"Corvids show cognitive biases, similar to humans. They have negative moods and show signs of pessimism after observing similar states in others.

"But they also show positive moods after successfully using tools—just like humans. And they can also show neophobia—wariness of new objects.

"Even if you come with treats to give them, corvids are reluctant to fly close to someone they haven't met before, but are confident with humans they know well—another common human trait.

***

"Perhaps their consciousness is more like split-brain human patients who have had their corpus callosum cut to reduce the effects of seizures. When two pictures are presented in their respective left and right visual fields, these people will draw what they see on the left side with their left hand, whereas they will verbally describe what is on the right, giving the appearance of two selves in one body.

"Corvids show remarkable abilities in their sense of self across time. Because they often hide food (scientists call this caching), they can remember not just where they hid food, but also what kind of food it was and how long ago they hid it—which is relevant for more perishable foods such as insects, compared to longer-lasting nuts.

"Here their memory far outstrips our own or, for that matter, most other animals when it comes to hiding objects, with some corvids caching and remembering over a thousand food items in a month for later consumption. No human would be able to remember that many hiding spots.

"Corvids can even plan, collecting and storing a tool such as a spoon for future use.

"They not only recognize themselves in mirrors, but also understand other minds. Research has shown corvids go back to remove cached food and hide it elsewhere if they know they have been observed—but only if they have stolen from others in the past.

"Male jays will watch the feeding behavior of a female they want to court, so they can bring their preferred food. Even more solitary corvids, such as ravens, seem to have well-developed social skills, which scientists used to think were largely restricted to mammals.

***

"...we believe that there is scientific evidence for rich conscious experiences in corvids. For most species, it is a lack of research, not a lack of capacity, that keeps us silent on what their subjective experiences are like.

"This research also has implications for corvid welfare. Understanding what the world is like for an animal means understanding what feels good and bad for them. Their good memories may mean they suffer longer from a negative experience, neophobia will mean novel objects should be introduced slowly, and their social abilities mean they should be housed in groups. Giving them tools could allow them enriching experiences."

Comment: more clever than ever. They may not be conscious like we are but they have their own degree of it.

https://www.sciencealert.com/crows-can-actually-count-out-loud-amazing-new-study-shows?...

'A team of scientists has shown that crows can 'count' out loud – producing a specific and deliberate number of caws in response to visual and auditory cues. While other animals such as honeybees have shown an ability to understand numbers, this specific manifestation of numeric literacy has not yet been observed in any other non-human species.

"'Producing a specific number of vocalizations with purpose requires a sophisticated combination of numerical abilities and vocal control," writes the team of researchers led by neuroscientist Diana Liao of the University of Tübingen in Germany.

"'Whether this capacity exists in animals other than humans is yet unknown. We show that crows can flexibly produce variable numbers of one to four vocalizations in response to arbitrary cues associated with numerical values."

"The ability to count aloud is distinct from understanding numbers. It requires not only that understanding, but purposeful vocal control with the aim of communication. Humans are known to use speech to count numbers and communicate quantities, an ability taught young.

"When toddlers are learning to count, learning the specific numbers associated with specific quantities can take a bit of time to master. In the interim, children can sometimes use random numbers to make a vocal tally. Instead of counting "one, two, three," they might say "one, one, four," or "three, ten, one." The number of vocalizations is correct, but the words themselves are jumbled.

***

"All three crows, the researchers found, were able to produce the correct number of caws in response to the cues, with the occasional error mostly presenting as one caw too many or too few.

"This, the researchers say, is similar to the way human toddlers count, using a non-symbolic approximate number system that is planned in advance before the first vocalization.

"Interestingly, the timing and sound of the first vocalization in a sequence were linked to how many vocalizations were made subsequently, and each vocalization in a sequence had acoustic features specific to its place in that sequence.

The feat is especially impressive for crows since deliberate vocalizations are more difficult to produce and have longer reaction times than, say, pecks or head movements.

***

"'This competency in crows also mirrors toddlers' enumeration skills before they learn to understand cardinal number words and may therefore constitute an evolutionary precursor of true counting where numbers are part of a combinatorial symbol system.'"

Comment: What this shows is that it doesn't take too many neurons to mimic human capacities.

https://www.sciencemagazinedigital.org/sciencemagazine/library/item/15_september_2023/4...

"Complex vocal learning, a critical component of human spoken language, has been assumed to be associated with more-advanced cognitive abilities. Tests of this hypothesis between individuals within a species have been inconclusive and have not been done across species. In this work, we measured an array of cognitive skills—namely, problem-solving, associative and reversal learning, and self-control—across 214 individuals of 23 bird species, including 19 wild-caught songbird species, two domesticated songbird species, and two wild-caught vocal nonlearning species. We found that the greater the vocal learning abilities of a species, the better their problem-solving skills and the relatively larger their brains. These conclusions held when controlling for noncognitive variables and phylogeny. Our results support a hypothesis of shared genetic and cognitive mechanisms between vocal learning, problem-solving, and bigger brains in songbirds.

***

"Spoken language and problem-solving are often considered to be components of intelligence in humans. An essential and specialized component of spoken language is vocal production learning, or the ability to imitate sounds. Advanced vocal learning has been found in only a handful of taxa, including five mammalian (humans, elephants, cetaceans, pinnipeds, and bats) and three avian (songbirds, parrots, and hummingbirds) clades. Interestingly, the vocal learning taxa that display the most complex vocal learning behavior overlap with those long thought to exhibit more-intelligent cognitive capacities [e.g., humans, cetaceans, elephants, corvid songbirds, and parrots], although this has not been quantitatively tested across species."

Comment: human brain evolution with enlargement and then the development of language suggests a parallel to the avian discoveries. More vocalizations carrying information require the presence of a larger, more complex brain. The evolutionary human pattern of a large, very complex brain before language development suggests the same pattern of evolution occurred in birds. This supports my view that speciation includes preparations for future important developments within species lifetime.

Other comments:

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGtxKLnKbBfRlHJWwRwwCBqScXw

"According to a new Science study, songbirds that can fluently imitate sounds they hear have bigger brains and better problem-solving abilities than their less tuneful peers.

"This ability to hear and then mimic complicated sounds, called complex vocal learning, is an important part of human spoken language acquisition that has only been observed in a handful of other species. Scientists have long assumed that it is associated with more advanced cognition. So to test this theory, researchers performed a series of behavioral tests on 214 birds from 23 different species. In one experiment, the birds were evaluated on their ability to remove a lid from a plastic container that held a tasty reward. In another, the birds needed to differentiate between lids of different colors to complete the task. The researchers found that species with more complex vocal learning abilities, such as the tufted titmouse, consistently aced the tests. The hapless mourning dove, meanwhile, was unable to perform the lid-opening task even after more than 50 attempts." (my bold)

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2381335-crows-can-understand-probability-like-prim...

"Crows can make decisions according to the likelihood of getting a reward – a cognitive feat known to mathematicians as statistical inference, and rarely found outside of primates.

***

"Her team trained two carrion crows (Corvus corone) to peck at nine, different-coloured symbols to receive a reward: a small food pellet or worms. Over hundreds of trials, they were taught that each symbol was associated with a different probability of receiving a reward, ranging from 10 to 100 per cent per peck. The crows were given the chance to choose between two options: for example, the green circle with a 90 per cent chance of receiving a reward versus the blue square with a 70 per cent chance. There were no wrong answers, just less optimal ones.

"Both crows pecked on the shapes with the highest probability of yielding them a reward more than seven times out of 10. In a second part of the experiment, shapes with lower probabilities were shown more often. While the crows could have pecked them more times and still gotten the same amount of reward, they still chose the shapes with the higher probability of getting them a treat.

“'They knew that even though it was shown less often it was more valuable,” says Johnston.

"This suggests the crows have the ability to use limited information about the probability of something happening and apply it in a new situation to maximise the possibility of getting a reward, she says.

"When tested a month later, the crows made decisions to peck the shapes with higher or lower probabilities at the same rate. “That’s pretty incredible,” says Johnston.

***

"Studies have suggested crows can grasp the concept of zero as a numerical quantity, something most human children don’t learn before around age 3.

"Rakoczy says that, prior to this, such complex numerical abilities were primarily known in primates. This not only highlights how brains can be very physiologically different and still carry out similarly complex reasoning, but also how the latter has cropped up independently in completely different branches of the evolutionary tree, he says."

Comment: more of the same. The crows' neurons are programmed to handle this.

https://phys.org/news/2022-03-broken-wing-tactic-widespread-thought.html

"A team of researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology and California Polytechnic State University, has found that the broken wing tactic used by some birds to lure predators away from their nest is more widespread than previously thought.

"Biologists have known about the broken wing tactic for more than 100 years, but its extent has never been thoroughly studied. What is known is that many members of bird species feign injury when predators approach their nest, hoping that they will be followed. Once they are a safe distance from the nest, the bird flies to safety.

"The work by the team involved searching for papers written about the broken wing tactic using Web of Science, Google Scholar and the Handbook of Birds of the World and building a database of findings. They carried out filtered requests that highlighted information about the tactic and found that it is more widespread than previously known—they found it in 52 bird families (and 13 orders) in nearly 300 species. They suggest this finding indicates that the tactic evolved independently multiple times.

"The researchers then looked for characteristics of the birds that use the tactic to see if they could spot commonalities. They found eight variables that they could associate with the broken wing tactic or feigning an injury. Most notably, they found that it was more common as species lived farther from the equator, suggesting that the behavior was related to shorter incubation periods. They also found it was more common in dense environments and where there was relatively little ground cover to hide the presence of a nest."

Comment: apparently an easily learned and copied tactic.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/young-ravens-rival-adult-chimps-in-a-big-tes...

"Scientists and casual observers alike have known for years that ravens and their corvid relatives are extremely smart. But most studies use single experiments that provide a limited view of their overall intelligence. “Quite often, in single tasks, you’re just testing whether the bird can understand that you’re hiding something,” says Simone Pika, a cognitive scientist at Osnabrück University in Germany.

"A new study that that tries to address that deficit provides some of the best proof yet that ravens, including young birds of just four months of age, have certain types of smarts that are on par with those of adult great apes. The brainy birds performed just as well as chimpanzees and orangutans across a broad array of tasks designed to measure intelligence. “We now have very strong evidence to say that, at least in the tasks we used, ravens are very similar to great apes,” says Pika, lead author of the study. “Across a whole spectrum of cognitive skills, their intelligence is really quite amazing.” The findings, published in Scientific Reports, add to a growing body of evidence indicating that impressive cognitive skills are not solely the domain of primates but occur in certain species across the animal kingdom."

Comment: No surprise based on previous studies.

DAVID: He wanted to design all of evolution, as history shows with humans as the endpoint. He understood the whole bush of life is necessary as a food supply for all. Especially with the ever rising size of the human population.

dhw: Why were 3.X billion years’ worth of food supplies for millions of now extinct organisms necessary in order to feed humans who had not yet appeared on the planet?

Now you propose God can't foresee the future?

DAVID: We both know no one can read the mind of God. Since He is capable of direct creation of the universe with the Big Bang, it seems He could have created humans directly, but we know He didn't.

dhw: And that is your problem. It is not unreasonable to assume that your God, if he exists, did what he WANTED to do. He didn’t directly create humans. So maybe he DID want to create humans, but didn’t know how to do it. Or maybe when he started the process of evolution, it was NOT because he wanted to create humans – but maybe he WANTED to create an ever changing bush of life.

You returned to your same mamby-pamby, experimenting with no future goal God.

DAVID (transferred from the “error” thread): Your thinking finally understands my theory. Of course He wanted all of the evolutionary stages on the way to humans, which are His final goal. The lack of understanding all these years shows your basic bias from the beginning. Your statement that He only wanted humans was your rigid misinterpretation of my thoughts all along.

dhw: But I keep asking you how the dodo and the dinosaur plus millions of extinct life forms can be called stages on the way to humans, in the sense that they were all “part of the goal of evolving humans”. You have consistently argued that your God’s purpose in creating life was to create H. sapiens. Sometimes you dilute this to “prime purpose” or “a goal” instead of “the” goal, and when asked what other goals there might be, you come up with none. I am proposing that the ever-changing great bush of life is what your God WANTED. And although I also propose that the bush is the result of him not wanting a predictable show (hence organisms having a free rein), your own belief that he specially designed every extinct non-human organism renders your anthropocentric theory even less likely.

You are still actively trying to twist an interpret action of my thoughts about God as an excuse for years of your confusion. I answered all your questions over and over in the same tone and fact. Evolving through all the stages of evolution, as history presents, to an accepted goal is a simple concept. That is all I have ever tried to present. Your so-called alternate goals interpret a God with a personality I do not accept. I'm still with Adler's interpretation.

DAVID: You rigidly can't make a choice when choices are obvious, and I rigidly stick to my choices all based on reasonable evidence. There is your word.

dhw: There is no “obvious” theistic choice, because as you rightly say, nobody can read your God’s mind. You rigidly stick to your one choice, and can't find any reason for it except that all the extinct life forms were necessary to feed humans who didn’t yet exist. “Reasonable evidence”?

There is a constellation of many facts covered in both my books which help describe God's actions and his probably purposeful personality. The bold is pure nonsense. Extinct life plays no role in current time. The huge bush of life is in present time for our huge population to use now. My God plans for future needs. You mind isn't following the continuity of His purposes. Again your bias, in my view.

dhw: Please tell us in what way your God’s design of the dinosaur and the dodo (plus a few million other dead life forms) provided a stage in the design of H. sapiens.

DAVID: Silly question. That is the way evolution works.

Silly answer. You insist that your God designed every species, and that every dead life form was “part of the goal of evolving humans”. How was designing the dinosaurs and the dodo part of the goal of designing humans?

DAVID: Choosing to evolve us requires exactly what you question. Thinking with a mind is the same for all who can think, including God.

dhw: Ah, so when you say he thinks as we do, all you mean is that he has got a mind. Got it! Unfortunately, that doesn’t help us to find a reason why he would directly design the dinosaur and the dodo when all he wanted to design was us.

DAVID: He wanted to design all of evolution, as history shows with humans as the endpoint. He understood the whole bush of life is necessary as a food supply for all. Especially with the ever rising size of the human population.

Why were 3.X billion years’ worth of food supplies for millions of now extinct organisms necessary in order to feed humans who had not yet appeared on the planet?

DAVID: No one can know God's exact thoughts. We both interpret the results of God's actions very differently.

dhw: But you reach definite decisions and talk of absolutes, even though you can’t find ANY logical reasons why he would have applied your choice of his method to fulfil your choice of his purpose. Furthermore, you reject my alternative possibilities, even though you can understand their logic. I know of atheists whose approach to these subjects is very similar to yours. They reach a definite decision concerning God’s existence and refuse to listen to your cogent and logical arguments- for design. Can you think of a word that describes this
approach? {Sadly you didn’t come up with one!]

DAVID: We both know no one can read the mind of God. Since He is capable of direct creation of the universe with the Big Bang, it seems He could have created humans directly, but we know He didn't.

And that is your problem. It is not unreasonable to assume that your God, if he exists, did what he WANTED to do. He didn’t directly create humans. So maybe he DID want to create humans, but didn’t know how to do it. Or maybe when he started the process of evolution, it was NOT because he wanted to create humans – but maybe he WANTED to create an ever changing bush of life.

DAVID (transferred from the “error” thread): Your thinking finally understands my theory. Of course He wanted all of the evolutionary stages on the way to humans, which are His final goal. The lack of understanding all these years shows your basic bias from the beginning. Your statement that He only wanted humans was your rigid misinterpretation of my thoughts all along.

But I keep asking you how the dodo and the dinosaur plus millions of extinct life forms can be called stages on the way to humans, in the sense that they were all “part of the goal of evolving humans”. You have consistently argued that your God’s purpose in creating life was to create H. sapiens. Sometimes you dilute this to “prime purpose” or “a goal” instead of “the” goal, and when asked what other goals there might be, you come up with none. I am proposing that the ever-changing great bush of life is what your God WANTED. And although I also propose that the bush is the result of him not wanting a predictable show (hence organisms having a free rein), your own belief that he specially designed every extinct non-human organism renders your anthropocentric theory even less likely.

DAVID: You rigidly can't make a choice when choices are obvious, and I rigidly stick to my choices all based on reasonable evidence. There is your word.

There is no “obvious” theistic choice, because as you rightly say, nobody can read your God’s mind. You rigidly stick to your one choice, and can't find any reason for it except that all the extinct life forms were necessary to feed humans who didn’t yet exist. “Reasonable evidence”?

DAVID: Round and round. That God chose to evolve us from bacteria is no dodge. Each stage purposeful.

dhw: Please tell us in what way your God’s design of the dinosaur and the dodo (plus a few million other dead life forms) provided a stage in the design of H. sapiens.

Silly question. That is the way evolution works.

DAVID: Choosing to evolve us requires exactly what you question. Thinking with a mind is the same for all who can think, including God.

dhw: Ah, so when you say he thinks as we do, all you mean is that he has got a mind. Got it! Unfortunately, that doesn’t help us to find a reason why he would directly design the dinosaur and the dodo when all he wanted to design was us.

He wanted to design all of evolution, as history shows with humans as the endpoint. He understood the whole bush of life is necessary as a food supply for all. Especially with the ever rising size of the human population.

DAVID: No one can know God's exact thoughts. We both interpret the results of God's actions very differently.

dhw: But you reach definite decisions and talk of absolutes, even though you can’t find ANY logical reasons why he would have applied your choice of his method to fulfil your choice of his purpose. Furthermore, you reject my alternative possibilities, even though you can understand their logic. I know of atheists whose approach to these subjects is very similar to yours. They reach a definite decision concerning God’s existence and refuse to listen to your cogent and logical arguments- for design. Can you think of a word that describes this approach?

We both know no one can read the mind of God. Since He is capable of direct creation of the universe with the Big Bang, it seems He could have created humans directly, but we know He didn't. The food supply is one major reason why not. You rigidly can't make a choice when choices are obvious, and I rigidly stick to my choices all based on reasonable evidence. There is your word.

DAVID: I assume God, as creator, formed history. Therefore I don't dodge. You refuse accept it.

dhw: I also assume that if God exists he formed history. But the only history we know is the great bush of life. Why and how God produced it is not history but interpretation. If you don’t dodge, then please tell us why your all-powerful God directly designed the dinosaur and the dodo although his only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food supply.

DAVID: Round and round. That God chose to evolve us from bacteria is no dodge. Each stage purposeful.

Please tell us in what way your God’s design of the dinosaur and the dodo (plus a few million other dead life forms) provided a stage in the design of H. sapiens.

DAVID: […] God thinks as we do. His reasoning is guided by His precise purposes. His choice of creation methods follows his reasoning which we cannot know but about which can make guesses.

dhw: […] The illogicality of your approach is all too clear from this latest comment of yours. How can you possibly know that God thinks as we do if you cannot follow his reasoning?

DAVID: Choosing to evolve us requires exactly what you question. Thinking with a mind is teh saem for all who can think, including God.

Ah, so when you say he thinks as we do, all you mean is that he has got a mind. Got it! Unfortunately, that doesn’t help us to find a reason why he would directly design the dinosaur and the dodo when all he wanted to design was us.

dhw: You make guesses and I make guesses, and you acknowledge that all of mine are logical but you “deal in absolutes” and I deal in “possibilities”. Since we cannot know his reasoning and can only guess, how can we deal in absolutes and not in possibilities?

DAVID: I reach definite opinions. Yours are in all directions of possibilities.

dhw: Correct. You admit that we cannot know your God’s reasons, but you have a definite opinion and deal in absolutes. […] You know how God thinks, although you don't know his reasoning.

DAVID: No one can know God's exact thoughts. We both interpret the results of God's actions very differently.

But you reach definite decisions and talk of absolutes, even though you can’t find ANY logical reasons why he would have applied your choice of his method to fulfil your choice of his purpose. Furthermore, you reject my alternative possibilities, even though you can understand their logic. I know of atheists whose approach to these subjects is very similar to yours. They reach a definite decision concerning God’s existence and refuse to listen to your cogent and logical arguments- for design. Can you think of a word that describes this approach?

dhw: No, my theory goes on to propose that the modern brain implements the new thoughts/ideas by complexifying and in the case of the hippocampus, expanding (adding new cells). You know the rest. Meanwhile, my simple question bolded above can be answered by a yes or a no.

DAVID: There is no yes or no answer since you avoid my point that the soul must think with the brain it is given, as stated above, a major difference in approach.

dhw: The two points are unrelated. Yes, I agree that the soul must think with the brain it is given, i.e. it uses the brain to gather the information it thinks about, and to implement its thoughts. Now please tell me whether you think the soul is capable of thinking new thoughts, using the information provided by the existing brain.

Again not my nuance of theory: I strongly feel in my view of dualism, the soul must use the brain networks to create thought and is the driver of the creation. Of course in that process it uses information provided by the brain either sensory or from memory. How do you define 'information'?

dhw: [..] please tell us how the history shows that (a) your God directly designed them all, and (b) that his sole purpose in designing them was to design H. sapiens, and (c) why God could not have designed H. sapiens without designing dinosaurs and dodos first.[…]

DAVID: I assume God, as creator, formed history. Therefore I don't dodge. You refuse accept it.

dhw: I also assume that if God exists he formed history. But the only history we know is the great bush of life. Why and how God produced it is not history but interpretation. If you don’t dodge, then please tell us why your all-powerful God directly designed the dinosaur and the dodo although his only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food supply.

Round and round. That God chose to evolve us from bacteria is no dodge. Each stage purposeful

DAVID: […] The bold is not my thinking. God thinks as we do. His reasoning is guided by His precise purposes. His choice of creation methods follows his reasoning which we cannot know but about which can make guesses.

dhw: […] The illogicality of your approach is all too clear from this latest comment of yours. How can you possibly know that God thinks as we do if you cannot follow his reasoning?

DAVID: Preposterous. How can I know his reasons? I know your reasoning because you have explained it. Reasoning is individual to each person. Methods of thought can be similar.

dhw: You can’t know his reasons, can only guess at them, and yet you know he “thinks as we do”. That is what is “preposterous”, especially when you attribute to him reasons which you yourself can’t understand, e.g. his reason for designing dinosaurs and dodos was that they were necessary for him to be able to design H. sapiens (see the “errors” thread).

Choosing to evolve us requires exactly what you question. Thinking with a mind is teh saem for all who can think, including God.

dhw: You make guesses and I make guesses, and you acknowledge that all of mine are logical but you “deal in absolutes” and I deal in “possibilities”. Since we cannot know his reasoning and can only guess, how can we deal in absolutes and not in possibilities?

DAVID: I reach definite opinions. Yours are in all directions of possibilities.

dhw: Correct. You admit that we cannot know your God’s reasons, but you have a definite opinion that his reason for creating life was to produce H. sapiens plus food supply, and that his reason for directly designing every other species that preceded H. sapiens was that they were “part of the goal of evolving humans”. You also have a definite opinion that any alternative to these guesses about his reasons – even if it is completely logical – is not how God thinks. You know how God thinks, although you don't know his reasoning.

No one can know God's exact thoughts. We both interpret the results of God's actions very differently.

DAVID: My dualist theory, not fudge. The soul must use the brain it is given to think, and does receive information from that brain, where you limit your theory.

dhw: No, my theory goes on to propose that the modern brain implements the new thoughts/ideas by complexifying and in the case of the hippocampus, expanding (adding new cells). You know the rest. Meanwhile, my simple question bolded above can be answered by a yes or a no.

DAVID: There is no yes or no answer since you avoid my point that the soul must think with the brain it is given, as stated above, a major difference in approach.

The two points are unrelated. Yes, I agree that the soul must think with the brain it is given, i.e. it uses the brain to gather the information it thinks about, and to implement its thoughts. Now please tell me whether you think the soul is capable of thinking new thoughts, using the information provided by the existing brain.

dhw: [..] please tell us how the history shows that (a) your God directly designed them all, and (b) that his sole purpose in designing them was to design H. sapiens, and (c) why God could not have designed H. sapiens without designing dinosaurs and dodos first.[…]

DAVID: I assume God, as creator, formed history. Therefore I don't dodge. You refuse accept it.

I also assume that if God exists he formed history. But the only history we know is the great bush of life. Why and how God produced it is not history but interpretation. If you don’t dodge, then please tell us why your all-powerful God directly designed the dinosaur and the dodo although his only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food supply.

DAVID: I deal in absolutes from the evidence and you in possibilities, a vastly different approach.

dhw: Yes, you have fixed and rigid beliefs as regards the nature, purpose and methods of your God. And yet you frequently remind us that we can’t “know” how God thinks. All the alternative explanations of evolution that I offer are possible versions of your God’s nature, purpose and methods. And you agree that they are all logical. […]

DAVID: […] The bold is not my thinking. God thinks as we do. His reasoning is guided by His precise purposes. His choice of creation methods follows his reasoning which we cannot know but about which can make guesses.

dhw: […] The illogicality of your approach is all too clear from this latest comment of yours. How can you possibly know that God thinks as we do if you cannot follow his reasoning?

DAVID: Preposterous. How can I know his reasons? I know your reasoning because you have explained it. Reasoning is individual to each person. Methods of thought can be similar.

You can’t know his reasons, can only guess at them, and yet you know he “thinks as we do”. That is what is “preposterous”, especially when you attribute to him reasons which you yourself can’t understand, e.g. his reason for designing dinosaurs and dodos was that they were necessary for him to be able to design H. sapiens (see the “errors” thread).

dhw: You make guesses and I make guesses, and you acknowledge that all of mine are logical but you “deal in absolutes” and I deal in “possibilities”. Since we cannot know his reasoning and can only guess, how can we deal in absolutes and not in possibilities?

DAVID: I reach definite opinions. Your's are in all directions of possibilities.

Correct. You admit that we cannot know your God’s reasons, but you have a definite opinion that his reason for creating life was to produce H. sapiens plus food supply, and that his reason for directly designing every other species that preceded H. sapiens was that they were “part of the goal of evolving humans”. You also have a definite opinion that any alternative to these guesses about his reasons – even if it is completely logical – is not how God thinks. You know how God thinks, although you don't know his reasoning.

dhw: You are reverting to your old fudge. We are talking about the functions of the dualist’s soul and brain. 1) The soul does the thinking. 2) The brain provides information and implements thought. Simple question for you: is the dualist’s soul capable of thinking new thoughts, using the information provided by the brain?

DAVID: My dualist theory, not fudge. The soul must use the brain it is given to think, and does receive information from that brain, where you limit your theory.

dhw: No, my theory goes on to propose that the modern brain implements the new thoughts/ideas by complexifying and in the case of the hippocampus, expanding (adding new cells). You know the rest. Meanwhile, my simple question bolded above can be answered by a yes or a no.

There is no yes or no answer since you avoid my point that the soul must think with the brain it is given, as stated above, a major difference in approach.

dhw: [..] please tell us how the history shows that (a) your God directly designed them all, and (b) that his sole purpose in designing them was to design H. sapiens, and (c) why God could not have designed H. sapiens without designing dinosaurs and dodos first.

DAVID:(a) God creates history; (b) humans arrived as the unexpected endpoint (Adler); (c)
God chose to evolve us for those of us who believe in God.

dhw:If God exists, I agree with (a), (b) I agree that humans arrived. Who didn’t expect humans? “Endpoint” means the conclusion, and humans may be the conclusion in the sense that there will never be a more complex product. It certainly doesn’t mean that evolution is finished, and it doesn’t explain why your all-powerful God designed dinosaurs and dodos if all he wanted to design was H. sapiens. This is the problem you always dodge. (c) Those of you who believe in God must also believe that he chose to evolve the dinosaur and the dodo. They do not have to believe that evolution is synonymous with direct design, as in preprogramming and/or dabbling. These are the things that history does not show!

I assume God, as creator, formed history. Therefore I don't dodge. You refuse accept it.

dhw: My agnosticism is totally irrelevant, and I wish you wouldn’t keep using it as your escape route. It is perfectly possible to believe in a God who endowed cells with intelligence.

DAVID: It does play a role. I deal in absolutes from the evidence and you in possibilities, a vastly different approach.

dhw: Yes, you have fixed and rigid beliefs as regards the nature, purpose and methods of your God. And yet you frequently remind us that we can’t “know” how God thinks. All the alternative explanations of evolution that I offer are possible versions of your God’s nature, purpose and methods. And you agree that they are all logical. Absolutely nothing to do with my agnosticism. An agnostic is just as free to speculate on these matters as a theist, and in any case I very much doubt that all theists share your views on the nature, purpose and methods of their God.

DAVID: I am my own theist. I follow my reasoning as influenced by some authors. The bold is not my thinking. God thinks as we do. His reasoning is guided by His precise purposes. His choice of creation methods follows his reasoning which we cannot know but about which can make guesses.

dhw: You tried to dismiss my criticism of your illogicality and all my alternative theories on the grounds that I am an agnostic. An agnostic can guess just as well as a theist! The illogicality of your approach is all too clear from this latest comment of yours. How can you possibly know that God thinks as we do if you cannot follow his reasoning?

Preposterous. How can I know his reasons? I know your reasoning because you have explained it. Reasoning is individual to each person. Methods of thought can be similar.

dhw: You make guesses and I make guesses, and you acknowledge that all of mine are logical but you “deal in absolutes” and I deal in “possibilities”. Since we cannot know his reasoning and can only guess, how can we deal in absolutes and not in possibilities?

I reach definite opinions. Your's are in all directions of possibilities.

dhw: You are reverting to your old fudge. We are talking about the functions of the dualist’s soul and brain. 1) The soul does the thinking. 2) The brain provides information and implements thought. Simple question for you: is the dualist’s soul capable of thinking new thoughts, using the information provided by the brain?

DAVID: My dualist theory, not fudge. The soul must use the brain it is given to think, and does receive information from that brain, where you limit your theory.

No, my theory goes on to propose that the modern brain implements the new thoughts/ideas by complexifying and in the case of the hippocampus, expanding (adding new cells). You know the rest. Meanwhile, my simple question bolded above can be answered by a yes or a no.

dhw: [..] please tell us how the history shows that (a) your God directly designed them all, and (b) that his sole purpose in designing them was to design H. sapiens, and (c) why God could not have designed H. sapiens without designing dinosaurs and dodos first.

DAVID:(a) God creates history; (b) humans arrived as the unexpected endpoint (Adler); (c)
God chose to evolve us for those of us who believe in God.

If God exists, I agree with (a), (b) I agree that humans arrived. Who didn’t expect humans? “Endpoint” means the conclusion, and humans may be the conclusion in the sense that there will never be a more complex product. It certainly doesn’t mean that evolution is finished, and it doesn’t explain why your all-powerful God designed dinosaurs and dodos if all he wanted to design was H. sapiens. This is the problem you always dodge. (c) Those of you who believe in God must also believe that he chose to evolve the dinosaur and the dodo. They do not have to believe that evolution is synonymous with direct design, as in preprogramming and/or dabbling. These are the things that history does not show!

DAVID: It is perfectly possible to believe, as I do, that cells follow explicit intelligent instructions implanted by/from God.

dhw: Of course it’s possible to believe it, but please don’t claim that we “know” it.

DAVID: I didn't write that above.

You wrote: “we know whole bacteria or cells follow exact instructions for the processes or how they respond to stimuli….”

DAVID: ...domain-specific cognitive skills are just that for cells and whole organisms as we observe. It does not mean they use their own innate intelligence or are subject to intelligent information instructions. I believe the latter and you the former. That will not change as long as you remain agnostic.

dhw: My agnosticism is totally irrelevant, and I wish you wouldn’t keep using it as your escape route. It is perfectly possible to believe in a God who endowed cells with intelligence.

DAVID: It does play a role. I deal in absolutes from the evidence and you in possibilities, a vastly different approach.

dhw: Yes, you have fixed and rigid beliefs as regards the nature, purpose and methods of your God. And yet you frequently remind us that we can’t “know” how God thinks. All the alternative explanations of evolution that I offer are possible versions of your God’s nature, purpose and methods. And you agree that they are all logical. Absolutely nothing to do with my agnosticism. An agnostic is just as free to speculate on these matters as a theist, and in any case I very much doubt that all theists share your views on the nature, purpose and methods of their God.

DAVID: I am my own theist. I follow my reasoning as influenced by some authors. The bold is not my thinking. God thinks as we do. His reasoning is guided by His precise purposes. His choice of creation methods follows his reasoning which we cannot know but about which can make guesses.

You tried to dismiss my criticism of your illogicality and all my alternative theories on the grounds that I am an agnostic. An agnostic can guess just as well as a theist! The illogicality of your approach is all too clear from this latest comment of yours. How can you possibly know that God thinks as we do if you cannot follow his reasoning? You make guesses and I make guesses, and you acknowledge that all of mine are logical but you “deal in absolutes” and I deal in “possibilities”. Since we cannot know his reasoning and can only guess, how can we deal in absolutes and not in possibilities?

DAVID: The key is implementation, as provided by the available complexity of the neuronal networks which allow the breadth of new thought by the soul.

dhw: You are reverting to your old fudge. We are talking about the functions of the dualist’s soul and brain. 1) The soul does the thinking. 2) The brain provides information and implements thought. Simple question for you: is the dualist’s soul capable of thinking new thoughts, using the information provided by the brain?

My dualist theory, not fudge. The soul must use the brain it is given to think, and does receive information from that brain, where you limit your theory.

DAVID: Apes survived just fine without morphing into our big brains.

dhw: And bacteria survived just fine without morphing into apes and dinosaurs and the duck-billed platypus. How does that prove that every organism that ever lived was “part of the goal of evolving humans”?

DAVID: Because that is what history of evolution shows us. God creates history.

dhw: Yes, if God exists, he has created history. I’ll leave out apes and living species to prevent any digressions here. The history of evolution shows us that dinosaurs and the dodo existed. Now please tell us how the history shows that (a) your God directly designed them all, and (b) that his sole purpose in designing them was to design H. sapiens, and (c) why God could not have designed H. sapiens without designing dinosaurs and dodos first.

(a) God creates history; (b) humans arrived as the unexpected endpoint (Adler); (c) God chose to evolve us for those of us who believe in God.

dhw: We don’t “know” that bacteria or cells follow exact instructions from your God. We know that they perform all kinds of actions successfully, and it is impossible not to believe that these result from some form of intelligence. You claim the intelligence is in the form of instructions from God, and I propose that they work out solutions for themselves, and whatever mechanism it is that enables them to “think” passes instructions to the rest of the cell.

DAVID: It is perfectly possible to believe, as I do, that cells follow explicit intelligent instructions implanted by/from God.

dhw: Of course it’s possible to believe it, but please don’t claim that we “know” it.

I didn't write that above.

DAVID: ...domain-specific cognitive skills are just that for cells and whole organisms as we observe. It does not mean they use their own innate intelligence or are subject to intelligent information instructions. I believe the latter and you the former. That will not change as long as you remain agnostic.

dhw: My agnosticism is totally irrelevant, and I wish you wouldn’t keep using it as your escape route. It is perfectly possible to believe in a God who endowed cells with intelligence.

DAVID: It does play a role. I deal in absolutes from the evidence and you in possibilities, a vastly different approach.

dhw: Yes, you have fixed and rigid beliefs as regards the nature, purpose and methods of your God. And yet you frequently remind us that we can’t “know” how God thinks. All the alternative explanations of evolution that I offer are possible versions of your God’s nature, purpose and methods. And you agree that they are all logical. Absolutely nothing to do with my agnosticism. An agnostic is just as free to speculate on these matters as a theist, and in any case I very much doubt that all theists share your views on the nature, purpose and methods of their God.

I am my own theist. I follow my reasoning as influenced by some authors. The bold is not my thinking. God thinks as we do. His reasoning is guided by His precise purposes. His choice of creation methods follows his reasoning which we cannot know but about which can make guesses.

DAVID: The key is implementation, as provided by the available complexity of the neuronal networks which allow the breadth of new thought by the soul.

You are reverting to your old fudge. We are talking about the functions of the dualist’s soul and brain. 1) The soul does the thinking. 2) The brain provides information and implements thought. Simple question for you: is the dualist’s soul capable of thinking new thoughts, using the information provided by the brain?

DAVID: Apes survived just fine without morphing into our big brains.

dhw: And bacteria survived just fine without morphing into apes and dinosaurs and the duck-billed platypus. How does that prove that every organism that ever lived was “part of the goal of evolving humans”?

DAVID: Because that is what history of evolution shows us. God creates history.

Yes, if God exists, he has created history. I’ll leave out apes and living species to prevent any digressions here. The history of evolution shows us that dinosaurs and the dodo existed. Now please tell us how the history shows that (a) your God directly designed them all, and (b) that his sole purpose in designing them was to design H. sapiens, and (c) why God could not have designed H. sapiens without designing dinosaurs and dodos first.

QUOTE: "With our study we show that cognitive abilities cannot be generalized, but that species instead differ in domain-specific cognitive skills…"

dhw: The bold is an important observation in the context of my speculations about evolution and intelligence. Firstly, there are different types of intelligence, and the fact that ants, for instance, only have tiny brains does not mean they do not have the intelligence to work out their own strategies for survival. But I would go even further. Bacteria and other single cells don’t have brains at all, but as you know, I propose that they do have intelligence, i.e. that somewhere within that tiny space is the equivalent of a brain. And that would explain how single cells can also differ in “domain-specific cognitive skills”.

DAVID: We haven't seen bacterial brains as yet with the finest of the newest technical methods but we can follow individual molecules as they work within systems, and bbwe know whole bacteria or cells follow exact instructions bb for the processes or how they respond to stimuli, all from information in the complexity of the genomes that we are still unearthing. They simply look intelligent and that is all we know at the moment.

dhw: We don’t “know” that bacteria or cells follow exact instructions from your God. We know that they perform all kinds of actions successfully, and it is impossible not to believe that these result from some form of intelligence. You claim the intelligence is in the form of instructions from God, and I propose that they work out solutions for themselves, and whatever mechanism it is that enables them to “think” passes instructions to the rest of the cell.

DAVID: It is perfectly possible to believe, as I do, that cells follow explicit intelligent instructions implanted by/from God.

Of course it’s possible to believe it, but please don’t claim that we “know” it.

DAVID: ...domain-specific cognitive skills are just that for cells and whole organisms as we observe. It does not mean they use their own innate intelligence or are subject to intelligent information instructions. I believe the latter and you the former. That will not change as long as you remain agnostic.

dhw: My agnosticism is totally irrelevant, and I wish you wouldn’t keep using it as your escape route. It is perfectly possible to believe in a God who endowed cells with intelligence.

DAVID: It does play a role. I deal in absolutes from the evidence and you in possibilities, a vastly different approach.

Yes, you have fixed and rigid beliefs as regards the nature, purpose and methods of your God. And yet you frequently remind us that we can’t “know” how God thinks. All the alternative explanations of evolution that I offer are possible versions of your God’s nature, purpose and methods. And you agree that they are all logical. Absolutely nothing to do with my agnosticism. An agnostic is just as free to speculate on these matters as a theist, and in any case I very much doubt that all theists share your views on the nature, purpose and methods of their God.

DAVID: Why ask again: I've always said the soul can only work with the brain it is given, complexity of concept limited by brain complexity. My dualism has not changed.

dhw: We agree that the soul can only work with the brain it is given. But that should not stop the soul from using the information provided by the brain to think of new concepts. And yet you say that the “level of MENTAL complexity (i.e. non-material thought) is based on the number of neurons and their networks complex design” (i.e. the material brain). As I understand it, dualism entails the soul doing the thinking and the brain providing the information and implementing the thought. This is what I believe you agreed in the past.

The key is implementation, as provided by the available complexity of the neuronal networks which allow the breadth of new thought by the soul

DAVID: Apes survived just fine without morphing into our big brains.

dhw: And bacteria survived just fine without morphing into apes and dinosaurs and the duck-billed platypus. How does that prove that every organism that ever lived was “part of the goal of evolving humans”?

DAVID: Your usual backwards approach. All of evolution was designed by God to eventually reach the goal of humans.

dhw: You keep repeating this, and I keep asking why an all-powerful God with only one purpose (H. sapiens) directly designed millions of now extinct non-human life forms, natural wonders etc. before even starting on directly designing all the different stages that led to the only life form (plus food supply) that he wanted to design. Back to “Back to David’s Theory…” Once again: how does the fact that bacteria morphed into apes, dinosaurs and the duck-billed platypus prove that they were all “part of the goal of evolving humans”?

Because that is what history of evolution shows us. God creates history.

QUOTE: "With our study we show that cognitive abilities cannot be generalized, but that species instead differ in domain-specific cognitive skills…"

dhw: The bold is an important observation in the context of my speculations about evolution and intelligence. Firstly, there are different types of intelligence, and the fact that ants, for instance, only have tiny brains does not mean they do not have the intelligence to work out their own strategies for survival. But I would go even further. Bacteria and other single cells don’t have brains at all, but as you know, I propose that they do have intelligence, i.e. that somewhere within that tiny space is the equivalent of a brain. And that would explain how single cells can also differ in “domain-specific cognitive skills”.

DAVID: We haven't seen bacterial brains as yet with the finest of the newest technical methods but we can follow individual molecules as they work within systems, and we know whole bacteria or cells follow exact instructions for the processes or how they respond to stimuli, all from information in the complexity of the genomes that we are still unearthing. They simply look intelligent and that is all we know at the moment.

dhw: We don’t “know” that bacteria or cells follow exact instructions from your God. We know that they perform all kinds of actions successfully, and it is impossible not to believe that these result from some form of intelligence. You claim the intelligence is in the form of instructions from God, and I propose that they work out solutions for themselves, and whatever mechanism it is that enables them to “think” passes instructions to the rest of the cell.

It is perfectly possible to believe, as I do, that cells follow explicit intelligent instructions implanted by/from God.

DAVID: domain-specific cognitive skills are just that for cells and whole organisms as we observe. It does not mean they use their own innate intelligence or are subject to intelligent information instructions. I believe the latter and you the former. That will not change as long as you remain agnostic.

dhw: My agnosticism is totally irrelevant, and I wish you wouldn’t keep using it as your escape route. It is perfectly possible to believe in a God who endowed cells with intelligence.

It does play a role. I deal in absolutes from the evidence and you in possibilities, a vastly different approach.

dhw: I agree that the brain’s complexity, neuron numbers and networks allow what any of us can DO and determine what we can work with. The great question is whether they allow what any of us can THINK, and surprisingly you argue that they are the base which determines the level of mental complexity. “Surprisingly” because this clashes with the dualism you always claim to espouse. '''perhaps we can shorten it with a simple question: do you believe the thoughts of your dualist’s soul are restricted by the numbers of neurons and their networks?

DAVID: Why ask again: I've always said the soul can only work with the brain it is given, complexity of concept limited by brain complexity. My dualism has not changed.

We agree that the soul can only work with the brain it is given. But that should not stop the soul from using the information provided by the brain to think of new concepts. And yet you say that the “level of MENTAL complexity (i.e. non-material thought) is based on the number of neurons and their networks complex design” (i.e. the material brain). As I understand it, dualism entails the soul doing the thinking and the brain providing the information and implementing the thought. This is what I believe you agreed in the past.

DAVID: Apes survived just fine without morphing into our big brains.

dhw: And bacteria survived just fine without morphing into apes and dinosaurs and the duck-billed platypus. How does that prove that every organism that ever lived was “part of the goal of evolving humans”?

DAVID: Your usual backwards approach. All of evolution was designed by God to eventually reach the goal of humans.

You keep repeating this, and I keep asking why an all-powerful God with only one purpose (H. sapiens) directly designed millions of now extinct non-human life forms, natural wonders etc. before even starting on directly designing all the different stages that led to the only life form (plus food supply) that he wanted to design. Back to “Back to David’s Theory…” Once again: how does the fact that bacteria morphed into apes, dinosaurs and the duck-billed platypus prove that they were all “part of the goal of evolving humans”?

QUOTE: "With our study we show that cognitive abilities cannot be generalized, but that species instead differ in domain-specific cognitive skills…"

dhw: The bold is an important observation in the context of my speculations about evolution and intelligence. Firstly, there are different types of intelligence, and the fact that ants, for instance, only have tiny brains does not mean they do not have the intelligence to work out their own strategies for survival. But I would go even further. Bacteria and other single cells don’t have brains at all, but as you know, I propose that they do have intelligence, i.e. that somewhere within that tiny space is the equivalent of a brain. And that would explain how single cells can also differ in “domain-specific cognitive skills”.

DAVID: We haven't seen bacterial brains as yet with the finest of the newest technical methods but we can follow individual molecules as they work within systems, and we know whole bacteria or cells follow exact instructions for the processes or how they respond to stimuli, all from information in the complexity of the genomes that we are still unearthing. They simply look intelligent and that is all we know at the moment.

We don’t “know” that bacteria or cells follow exact instructions from your God. We know that they perform all kinds of actions successfully, and it is impossible not to believe that these result from some form of intelligence. You claim the intelligence is in the form of instructions from God, and I propose that they work out solutions for themselves, and whatever mechanism it is that enables them to “think” passes instructions to the rest of the cell.

DAVID: domain-specific cognitive skills are just that for cells and whole organisms as we observe. It does not mean they use their own innate intelligence or are subject to intelligent information instructions. I believe the latter and you the former. That will not change as long as you remain agnostic.

My agnosticism is totally irrelevant, and I wish you wouldn’t keep using it as your escape route. It is perfectly possible to believe in a God who endowed cells with intelligence.

DAVID: their current brain complexity allows what they can do. Which translates into my view that what level of mental complexity occurs is based on the number of neurons and their networks complex design. One can only work with what is given. We work with a brain given to us at least 315,000 years ago and its complexity allowed what has subsequently happened.

I agree that the brain’s complexity, neuron numbers and networks allow what any of us can DO and determine what we can work with. The great question is whether they allow what any of us can THINK, and surprisingly you argue that they are the base which determines the level of mental complexity. “Surprisingly” because this clashes with the dualism you always claim to espouse. '''perhaps we can shorten it with a simple question: do you believe the thoughts of your dualist’s soul are restricted by the numbers of neurons and their networks?

Why ask again: I've always said the soul can only work with the brain it is given, complexity of concept limited by brain complexity. My dualism has not changed.

dhw: What is weird is that according to you, the driving force behind corvid intelligence and that of every other form of intelligence was your God's one and only desire to design sapiens intelligence. They were all "part of the goal of evolving humans". I would suggest that in all instances, the driving force was the urge of the cell communities to improve their chances of survival by using the intelligence your God may have provided them with from the beginning.

DAVID: My same disagreement. Apes survived just fine without morphing into our big brains.

dhw: And bacteria survived just fine without morphing into apes and dinosaurs and the duck-billed platypus. How does that prove that every organism that ever lived was “part of the goal of evolving humans”?

Your usual backwards approach. All of evolution was designed by God to eventually reach the goal of humans.

DAVID: The other point is it is the volume of neurons that make a difference. Size, by itself, is not a major guide to brain capacity as the first bold shows.

dhw: Just to link this to our "brain expansion" thread: there is a limit to the number of cells each skull can contain. A corvid presumably wouldn’t be able to fly if its head doubled in size, and so I have proposed that the human skull eventually stopped expanding because further expansion would have created problems for the rest of the anatomy. For other implications concerning volume, see my first comment above.

DAVID: Based on corvid brain size and what they can do, as I think with humans, a slight skull enlargement is anatomically possible but not necessary because the current brains work so well. Your harping on skull size is a side issue. Neanderthal skulls were much bigger and our earlier brains were also larger. So what! Our brains are at final size since IMHO speciation is over as is major evolution. All that is left are minor adaptations.

dhw: I was only referring to the question of why our brains stopped expanding. This is an integral part of the discussion on the subject of brain expansion.

QUOTE: "With our study we show that cognitive abilities cannot be generalized, but that
species instead differ in domain-specific cognitive skills," says Claudia Fichtel, one of the two first authors of the study funded by the German Research Foundation. "Accordingly, the relationship between brain size and cognitive abilities cannot be generalized.'"

DAVID: The corvids show it is not bulk size but neuron count and network complexity But as humans show overall bulk does help if enough neurons and networks are added. The elephants and whales lack that additive.

dhw: The bold is an important observation in the context of my speculations about evolution and intelligence. Firstly, there are different types of intelligence, and the fact that ants, for instance, only have tiny brains does not mean they do not have the intelligence to work out their own strategies for survival. But I would go even further. Bacteria and other single cells don’t have brains at all, but as you know, I propose that they do have intelligence, i.e. that somewhere within that tiny space is the equivalent of a brain. And that would explain how single cells can also differ in “domain-specific cognitive skills”.

We haven't see bacterial brains as yet with the finest of the newest technical methods but we can follow individual molecules as they work within systems, and we know whole bacteria or cells follow exact instructions for the processes or how they respond to stimuli, all from information in the complexity of the genomes that we are still unearthing. They simply look intelligent and that is all we know at the moment. domain-specific cognitive skills are just that for cells and whole organisms as we observe. It does not mean they use their own innate intelligence or are subject to intelligent information instructions. I believe the latter and you the former. That will not change as long as you remain agnostic.

QUOTE: So far, it appears that the more neurons there are in the pallium as a whole, regardless of pallial, brain, or body size, the more cognitive capacity is exhibited by the animal. (David’s bold)

dhw: This is a major factor in the debate between materialism and dualism. Does consciousness/ intelligence/cognitive capacity arise out of the neurons, or do the neurons multiply in accordance with the demands of a conscious intelligence? (NB that does not mean that our fellow animals have the same DEGREE of consciousness/intelligence as ourselves.) Were ancient corvids as intelligent as modern corvids, and did they have the same number of neurons? No way of knowing. What researchers could find out, though, would be whether corvid brains, just like human brains, complexify in response to new requirements (e.g. when they solve specific problems).

DAVID: Bold is unknown as yet, but their current brain complexity allows what they can do. Which translates into my view that what level of mental complexity occurs is based on the number of neurons and their networks complex design. One can only work with what is given. We work with a brain given to us at least 315,000 years ago and its complexity allowed what has subsequently happened.

I agree that the brain’s complexity, neuron numbers and networks allow what any of us can DO and determine what we can work with. The great question is whether they allow what any of us can THINK, and surprisingly you argue that they are the base which determines the level of mental complexity. “Surprisingly” because this clashes with the dualism you always claim to espouse. If the soul exists, I would agree that its thoughts are restricted by experience and by the information the brain has provided, but not that it is incapable of coming up with new ideas based on existing experiences and information. We have been over this so many times that further discussion can only mean yet more repetition. But perhaps we can shorten it with a simple question: do you believe the thoughts of your dualist’s soul are restricted by the numbers of neurons and their networks?

dhw: What is weird is that according to you, the driving force behind corvid intelligence and that of every other form of intelligence was your God's one and only desire to design sapiens intelligence. They were all "part of the goal of evolving humans". I would suggest that in all instances, the driving force was the urge of the cell communities to improve their chances of survival by using the intelligence your God may have provided them with from the beginning.

DAVID: My same disagreement. Apes survived just fine without morphing into our big brains.

And bacteria survived just fine without morphing into apes and dinosaurs and the duck-billed platypus. How does that prove that every organism that ever lived was “part of the goal of evolving humans”?

DAVID: The other point is it is the volume of neurons that make a difference. Size, by itself, is not a major guide to brain capacity as the first bold shows.

dhw: Just to link this to our "brain expansion" thread: there is a limit to the number of cells each skull can contain. A corvid presumably wouldn’t be able to fly if its head doubled in size, and so I have proposed that the human skull eventually stopped expanding because further expansion would have created problems for the rest of the anatomy. For other implications concerning volume, see my first comment above.

DAVID: Based on corvid brain size and what they can do, as I think with humans, a slight skull enlargement is anatomically possible but not necessary because the current brains work so well. Your harping on skull size is a side issue. Neanderthal skulls were much bigger and our earlier brains were also larger. So what! Our brains are at final size since IMHO speciation is over as is major evolution. All that is left are minor adaptations.

I was only referring to the question of why our brains stopped expanding. This is an integral part of the discussion on the subject of brain expansion.

QUOTE: "With our study we show that cognitive abilities cannot be generalized, but that
species instead differ in domain-specific cognitive skills," says Claudia Fichtel, one of the two first authors of the study funded by the German Research Foundation. "Accordingly, the relationship between brain size and cognitive abilities cannot be generalized.'"

DAVID: The corvids show it is not bulk size but neuron count and network complexity But as humans show overall bulk does help if enough neurons and networks are added. The elephants and whales lack that additive.

The bold is an important observation in the context of my speculations about evolution and intelligence. Firstly, there are different types of intelligence, and the fact that ants, for instance, only have tiny brains does not mean they do not have the intelligence to work out their own strategies for survival. But I would go even further. Bacteria and other single cells don’t have brains at all, but as you know, I propose that they do have intelligence, i.e. that somewhere within that tiny space is the equivalent of a brain. And that would explain how single cells can also differ in “domain-specific cognitive skills”.