Post reply

Reply to the message by dhw

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:

> dhw: [i]As with God, absolute proof is impossible, because we can never enter the &#147;mind&#148; of a bacterium (if it has a mind).[/i]-DAVID: [i]I keep repeating, ad nauseum, that if the bacteria has a complete play book of automatic responses, one cannot tell the difference between thinking bacteria and fully programmed bacteria with intelligently given information in their DNA. Each postulate is equally likely. And so far each response mechanism studied is described in automatic biochemical terms.[/i]-And I keep pointing out ad nauseam that we CAN only study mechanical responses, because thought processes in all organisms including ourselves and your dog can - at least for the time being - only be deduced from their results (e.g behaviour). And I keep pointing out ad nauseam that if two postulates are equally likely, i.e. that intelligent behaviour might or might not be caused by intelligence, it would be logical to keep an open mind rather than dismissing one of them as &#147;absolutely wrong&#148;. (I am not asking you to believe it.)   dhw: [i]Experts tell us that bacteria communicate with one another, form communities, work out strategies, take decisions...all of which require some thought and planning. How can you possibly know that the experts are &#147;absolutely wrong&#148;? [/i] DAVID: [i]It is theirs&apos; and your opinion that these strategies and decisions require &apos;some thought&apos;. All can also be fully explained as automatic responses. No one of us is inside a bacterium to tell the difference.[/i]-You have repeated my own argument that &#147;[i]we can never enter the &#147;mind&#148; of a bacterium (if it has a mind)[/i]&#148;, just as we can never know if God exists unless he reveals himself unmistakably. Absolute proof in both contexts is impossible. I respect - though I do not share - your opinion that the God postulate is more likely, but once again I remain totally baffled by your dismissing as &#147;absolutely wrong&#148; a postulate which you agree is just as likely as your own. I wonder how you would respond to someone who says God&apos;s existence and non-existence are equally likely, but theists are &#147;absolutely wrong&#148;.