Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> > DAVID: [i]See other discussions re' how God works. He may be hands on all the time. It is all guess work, nothing concrete, as you always try to make it.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: The guess that your God gave ants the wherewithal to devise their own farming system is no more concrete than your changing guesses that your God preprogrammed ant farming or dabbled it (= hands on).
> 
> Same example: I'm not concrete. As I've written elsewhere today, the design you accept which keeps you agnostic, logically requires a very powerful mind. all I am doing is theorizing on how that mind works, trying to ignore religious teachings which just get in the way. My theories are no more concrete or substantiated than your woolly idea 'hard thought blew up ancient brains', when their artifacts are so simple, and even our giant brain couldn't invent much and was at a stone age level until 10,000 years ago. Can't you see we had a great brain we had to learn to use? Therefore thought didn't blow it up!!!
> >  
> > Xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > 
> > Under "bacterial memory":
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Usual twist. The article shows exactly what happens physically in the ant membranes, a form of chemical memory, nothing more.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]There are only two ways you can study any living being: 1) the material workings, and 2) the behavioural. How do you know that human memory, storage of information, communication, ability to change behaviour are not “nothing more” than chemical?[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]At the basis they are chemical also, but the use of charged ions is directed into complex networks of axons and changeable dendrites to create human n=mental capacities. The bacterial memory is extremely simple arrangement of ions.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: So bacterial intelligence is not as advanced as human intelligence. I think most of us can accept that.
> 
> Good
> > 
> > xxxxx
> > 
> > Under "Negative memory controls"
> > 
> > "[i]'Our findings in worms are a good starting point for further research into the cognitive functions of other animals. We know that Neuromedin U is also found in many other organisms and in the human brain," says Professor Liliane Schoofs. "A good knowledge of these basic mechanisms is, therefore, crucial to better understand the complex processes in the human brain.'[/i]"
> > 
> > DAVID:[i]It seems all brains have the same basic properties, but vary greatly in thought capacity as the human brain shows. Communication by ion electric currents is basic to brain processes, but the neurons are also influenced by many different neuropeptides.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Both of the above posts emphasize the material sources of cognition, as indeed do you with your constant references to the thought capacity of the human brain. And all the articles seem to suggest that other life forms have a degree of cognition.
> 
> They do.  Animals and plants must have protective sensors to recognize problems. Our brain is the material side of my dualism with its massive neuronal networks available to the soul to use to create thoughts at all levels of complexity.