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:

> > [b]The smelly hoatzin[/b]
> 
> > DAVID: [i]Recognize the point I recognize evolution as a cumbersome but strangely efficient method of creation. Our inexplicable brain is here functioning.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: And the hoatzin is also here functioning, somehow proving that the best example of an inefficient system proves that the system is efficient. You can’t bear the thought that your God might have had a different purpose from the one you impose on him, and/or used a different method to produce the realities of life’s history. And you would rather ridicule your God than admit that your theory might be wrong.
> 
> That we are an endpoint is an inescapable proof. You keep presenting biased items to say we are not.
> > 
> > [b]Animal minds: Insect tool use[/b]
> > 
> > QUOTE: "[i]An insect that harvests and modifies plant resin to snare its prey adds to a growing body of evidence that suggests we may be underestimating the cunning of invertebrate animals.[/i]”
> > 
> > DAVID:[i] what is now instinct appears to have developed by conceptualization of a tool's use, the author's assumption. On the other hand, trial and error was a possible method of development. Just as we have tested crows to show they use thinking, we must test the insects in the same way to achieve the same level of certainty. Insect thought would not surprise me[/i].
> > 
> > dhw: [i]Don’t you realize that even trial and error requires conscious thought? How else would an organism know what to try and what fails or succeeds?[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]The answer is God designs it. It is my stated position above that I accepted insect intelligence.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Your statement was that it needs to be tested but would not surprise you. I have no idea why you can accept insect and bacterial intelligence, but regard it as impossible for the possum and the weaverbird. And are you now saying that your God conducts experiments of trial and error, and not the animals themselves?
> 
> God does not need trial and error.
> > 
> > dhw: [i]Sorry, but I really can’t follow this hierarchy of “conceptuality”.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]It all depends on the depth of the required conceptuality, such as managing the future result in favorable terms as a result of the immediate act.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: So the insect says; “If I harvest and modify this plant resin, it will in future attract prey which I can kill and eat,” and that proves how intelligent the insect is. But the possum says to himself: “The wolf walked away from a dead possum, so if in the future I’m in danger of being eaten by a wolf, maybe it will walk away if I pretend that I am dead,” and that could only happen if your God came and taught him. Your idea of “conceptuality” is incomprehensible.
> 
> I said we need to test the insect. It may be God designed it.
> > 
> > [b]Mind and cosmos[/b]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]I am not dodging. NDE's explain more about consciousness than all your theorizing. What is cellular consciousness? A part of your wish for cellular brilliance that doesn't exist.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]I don't wish for anything. I examine the arguments. NDEs imply that our consciousness lives on even when our brain is dead. They appear to confirm the concept of dualism. But even if there is no known physical explanation, this still doesn’t tell us the SOURCE of consciousness. I simply don’t understand what you mean by “We use God’s consciousness to form our own”. What part of “us” reaches out to grab a blob and manipulate it to the shape we want? The sentence makes no sense to me. [b]But God imbues our cells with consciousness. i.e. has invented cellular consciousness,[/b] makes perfect sense. Whether it does or doesn’t live on after death is a different issue.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]What I bolded above in your thoughts is how I think about God. He planned us to evolve with consciousness.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Thank you. You have now at last confirmed your support for the theory of cellular intelligence/consciousness, on condition that your God designed it. So please stop telling us that cells can’t be intelligent.
> 
> No. He planned US, n ot our cells, to be conscious.