# METAZOA, Animal life and the birth of the mind, Peter Godfey-Smith **URL:** \ **Category:** Philosophy\ **Created:** [October 15, 2021, 7:49pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/metazoa-animal-life-and-the-birth-of-the-mind-peter-godfey-smith/8495 "2021-10-15T19:49:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![wolfhnd](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/wolfhnd/32/23404_2.png) [@wolfhnd](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/wolfhnd)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2024, 7:12pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/metazoa-animal-life-and-the-birth-of-the-mind-peter-godfey-smith/8495/141 "2024-05-30T19:12:49Z")
> [@write4u](#): > > I like the way this AI thinks… 🤔 I have work to do but I can’t seem to move on. I had a thought I wanted to share. It has to do with what I posted earlier about a “new kind of science”. You could call it solutions without comprehension as I did. I think people missed the point. Here is an example that we are all familiar with. You don’t have to understand math to use it. Mathematics evolved a logic system that is applicable to any problem. Understanding that logic system may or may not help you solve whatever problem you are working on. In general it is not necessary to “understand” the math you use. I worked as an engineer and I just assume that the necessary mathematics were useful and reliable. I know very little about the evolutionary steps that mathematics took to get to the tools I needed. The result is I produced solutions without comprehension. It is a fundamental evolutionary insight. No comprehension was needed for life to evolve. Evolution itself is purposeless. Humans impose purpose on it because the system is self defining. In other words the eye and it’s purpose is a reflection of the nature of the sun. Our purpose is fitness which we acquired from the process of evolution. ---
**Author:** ![citizenschallengev4](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/citizenschallengev4/32/28718_2.png) [@citizenschallengev4](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/citizenschallengev4)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2024, 7:17pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/metazoa-animal-life-and-the-birth-of-the-mind-peter-godfey-smith/8495/142 "2024-05-30T19:17:30Z")
> [@lausten](#): > > I’m not sure what Noble’s distinction is between stochastic methods and whatever it is he is talking about. > [@lausten](#): > > I don’t remember being impressed by Noble. > [@lausten](#): > > **Now the big question is how do you explain that without recreating a duality?** ” How do you avoid Descartes mistake? > > Does he ever answer that? Not that I know of, but then I think people make way to big a deal out of “Dualism” (of course depending on which of a dozen definitions of dualism you are referring to.). Let’s get real, dualism is woven into the fabric of the Universe and Earth’s Evolution! The dualism between matter and energy and the dualism between the creature’s minds, and their physical biological components. What’s the big deal? _Seriously can you explain it? Because I’ve come to see that as a Red Herring, and one of the things that I’ve been railing against regarding pre-evolution/Earth appreciating philosophy, which is remains pretty much, most of it these days. (at least the public facing dialogue)_ > [@lausten](#): > > There isn’t an external force, and we don’t feel like we are mechanisms. That’s something that needs a resolution. Yeah, and you’ll never resolve until you really come face to face with and internalize that you, as a biological creature, have a blood line, that is a direct genetic heritage quite literally going back half a billion years, with over three billions years of molecules figuring out the biology game before that - While Earth’s raw elements were evolving and processing and concentrating and setting the stage with the components that would turn into living aware goal oriented cells evolving into creative curious creatures, with internal dialogues, each unique to its kind, … of every possible description. That’s dualism in action on our Earthly reality. > [@lausten](#): > > He follows with “what do you want to keep, what do you want to reject, it’s simple”. What “you” is he talking about? Well it starts out with an aqueous solution, lipid bubbles within a brownian medium, and having to learn what must be excreted and what must be absorbed into the cell. Time and complexity does the rest. > [@lausten](#): > > Then a strawman about how we aren’t computers, then slides into saying AI will do something and his own fictional story of what a robot would think about itself. Sometimes you really disappoint. Spend a little more time listen to and thinking about that story - and the difference between a silicon based mineral world and the biological water based being that we are. > [@wolfhnd](#): > > The only question is how random does it have to be. Does it require Quantum uncertainty? So yes Quantum physics may tell us something All that’s missing is the uncountable folds within folds of harmonic constructive complexity that is a biological being, be it single cell, or human being. > [@wolfhnd](#): > > In a way the link between the physical and the metaphysical is how you maintain reproductive fidelity while allowing for change. How’s that? > [@wolfhnd](#): > > The way that top down and bottom up “design” compliment each other. Yeah, in Earth’s Evolution, biologically it’s survival of the best adapted, then there was mass catastrophes that radically altered condition that life had to adapt to. Remember we can’t understand any creature without understanding the environments it’s evolved within. > [@wolfhnd](#): > > I don’t see how you ever get an explanation of randomness. You are correct, randomness is a human construct, it only means anything of substance within specific parameters. Regarding the nature that’s unfolding outside of human influence, it means as much as water does to fish. **The game of life is all about weighting that randomness in your favor.** ---
**Author:** ![lausten](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/lausten/32/23705_2.png) [@lausten](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/lausten)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2024, 8:05pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/metazoa-animal-life-and-the-birth-of-the-mind-peter-godfey-smith/8495/143 "2024-05-30T20:05:02Z")
> [@wolfhnd](#): > > offered you the same explanation You don’t answer the question either. You don’t address the organism doing something. ---
**Author:** ![citizenschallengev4](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/citizenschallengev4/32/28718_2.png) [@citizenschallengev4](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/citizenschallengev4)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2024, 8:11pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/metazoa-animal-life-and-the-birth-of-the-mind-peter-godfey-smith/8495/144 "2024-05-30T20:11:13Z")
> [@lausten](#): > > I’m not sure what Noble’s distinction is between stochastic methods and whatever it is he is talking about. I don’t know enough about Noble to care one way of the other if you are impressed with him or not. Though I might add in his defense, Noble seems plenty accomplished, and his ideas harmonize with my understanding, and help fill in details and most pleasant they are an affirmation of my Earth Centrist line of thought. As I’ve tried pointing out, all I believe in comes through better science based understanding. My mind has its limitations and doesn’t care about the names so much, it’s the ideas I latch onto and ruminate over. It’s the words and fact based ideas Noble shared that I was focused on: A)… Hydrogen & oxygen have extreme physical properties. Side note - [Arvin Ash](https://www.youtube.com/@ArvinAsh): [Why is All Life Carbon Based, Not Silicon? Three Startling Reasons!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAFC4RY1cKQ) B)… Yet together they produce an incomparable fluid, with mild physical properties, excepting that it’s literally a universal solvent, with the exception of fats. C)… The reality of Brownian motion and what that means to aqueous biological chemistry and systems. > Check out some of [SubAnimal’s](https://www.youtube.com/@SubAnima) modern biology videos, with such gems as: > … You’ve Been Lied To About Genetics > … Organisms Are Not Made Of Atoms > … Natural Selection Is Kinda Overhyped > Thing is he backs it up with real scientific findings, and it really does make sense upon reflection, and passes my smell test. He doesn’t make many videos, so that speaks in his favor too. D) Fats are insoluble in water. You can make an emulsion of tiny fat globules with water, but it will not dissolve. E) … that with time these bubbles formed membranes, which in turn became sacks of stuff isolated from the outside world. Yet the membranes **had** to learn how to excrete some stuff, while holding in all the good stuff, and also how to absorb some stuff, while block other things. Eventually they did, but all of that is only possible in an aqueous world. Our bodies remain aqueous worlds onto themselves. 😉 F) … Right there is the biological origins of awareness, that took another few billions years to blossom into consciousness and ultimately in human self-awareness. > **Now the big question is how do you explain that without recreating a duality?** We don’t need to, it’s about as relevant as how many angels can dance on a needle. Nature doesn’t need to explain itself to us smart but ego blinded fools. Duality is fundamental, energy ~ matter … mind ~ biological creature … It’s like asking why does this coin have a tails to it? Or a fish fretting about water. We’d have done much better to understand nature before becoming Gods. [![](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/uploads/centerforinquiry/original/3X/7/6/76d2867dda2feee7a996ee139508ca1d39b3e76d.jpeg "Fantasia - The Sorcerer's Apprentice (Part 1)") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4M-54cEduo) ---
**Author:** ![lausten](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/lausten/32/23705_2.png) [@lausten](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/lausten)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2024, 8:41pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/metazoa-animal-life-and-the-birth-of-the-mind-peter-godfey-smith/8495/145 "2024-05-30T20:41:16Z")
> [@citizenschallengev4](#): > > Noble seems plenty accomplished, and his ideas harmonize with my understanding, and help fill in details and most pleasant they are an affirmation of my Earth Centrist line of thought. > > As I’ve tried pointing out, all I believe in comes through better science based understanding. I wasn’t asking you to defend the man, I quoted a specific question, and asked for dialog on that. But this forum has become a pseudo-science discussion with no way to moderate our way out of it. I would be happy if CFI only allowed talk about CFI articles and shows and booted everyone else off. So great, a guy said something that confirms something you like. That’s not an opening for dialog. > [@citizenschallengev4](#): > > Let’s get real, dualism is woven into the fabric of the Universe and Earth’s Evolution! Descartes error of the body-soul dualism specifically referenced by Noble, the guy you linked to. He is the one who is noting that his ideas could be confused with a separate supernatural power coming from outside our bodies that creates our thoughts and minds. Nothing could be more clear from YOUR link. He is not talking about matter and energy or any other random two things. > [@citizenschallengev4](#): > > Seriously can you explain it? Because I’ve come to see that as a Red Herring I think I just did. And there’s more. To avoid a supernatural explanation, you need to look for natural ones and have your conclusions based on the data. Darwin did that, and gave us a path to understanding ourselves as a result of mutation and natural selection. As Dawkins points out in this full version of the discussion, Darwin did explore some Lamarkian ideas in version 6 of The Origin of Species. But, those ideas did not pan out. Noble comes along, and says “Darwin was a Lamarkian”. No. [Dawkins re-examined: Dawkins’ legacy (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLC0akD1WOE) ---
**Author:** ![citizenschallengev4](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/citizenschallengev4/32/28718_2.png) [@citizenschallengev4](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/citizenschallengev4)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2024, 8:43pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/metazoa-animal-life-and-the-birth-of-the-mind-peter-godfey-smith/8495/146 "2024-05-30T20:43:47Z")
> [@lausten](#): > > But this forum has become a pseudo-science discussion Are you calling Noble a pseudo-scientist? Are you claiming that list of points worth note aren’t factual? ---
**Author:** ![citizenschallengev4](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/citizenschallengev4/32/28718_2.png) [@citizenschallengev4](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/citizenschallengev4)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2024, 8:52pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/metazoa-animal-life-and-the-birth-of-the-mind-peter-godfey-smith/8495/147 "2024-05-30T20:52:45Z")
> [@lausten](#): > > He is not talking about matter and energy or any other random two things. No, he wasn’t. You asked about Dualism to be explained - that was my contribution. > [@lausten](#): > > To avoid a supernatural explanation, you need to look for natural ones and have your conclusions based on the data. Who’s talking about super natural, biological systems had to learn how to make good decisions, and it started with cell wall membranes discerning the good and the bad, the coming and the going. Then we had evolution for ever echoing that impulse and creating mechanisms towards that end. This scientific geological-biological history. You can’t dance around the fact that the simplest of creature had to be curious, had to make choices, had to act appropriately or not survive. Where is the supernatural? … because nothing else would have worked. ========================= > [@lausten](#): > > to avoid a supernatural explanation I believe your question (expectation) is theological one and not a realistic scientific or humanistic one. The same old song and dance that I’m increasingly rejecting. Noble was pointing out facts that are consilient with other facts. > [@lausten](#): > > Noble comes along, and says “Darwin was a Lamarkian”. Oh boy, that’s not actually what he said, plus he was quoting a historical figure, not making the claim in itself. Besides the Lamarkian thing is more nuanced that the Russian villain BSC scientist he may have turned into (God help us from old has been scientists), after all we do have Transposons and CRISPR. That stuff isn’t supernatural. ---
**Author:** ![write4u](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/write4u/32/23410_2.png) [@write4u](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/write4u)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2024, 8:57pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/metazoa-animal-life-and-the-birth-of-the-mind-peter-godfey-smith/8495/148 "2024-05-30T20:57:37Z")
> [@wolfhnd](#): > > The result is I produced solutions without comprehension. It is a fundamental evolutionary insight. No comprehension was needed for life to evolve. Evolution itself is purposeless. I heard that in biology this is called a flexible data processing system that can switch to a “biomechanical state” that selects for handling the specific data. I understand this as the ability of the system to adjust the system to “expect” specific data that needs “attending” to. The system is able to enter a state that preps itself for specific task. In the case of dolphin biomechanics, is to adjust for energy expenditure adjusted for “long distance travel” or adjusted for or a more intensive energy supply for “short bursts of speed” for hunting. ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/uploads/centerforinquiry/original/3X/d/f/dfb86009ace2277a163bba17fbae08e3a3b4e11d.jpeg) _Chinstrap penguin leaping over water_ **Comparative biomechanics** > Comparative biomechanics is the application of biomechanics to non-human organisms, whether used to gain greater insights into humans (as in physical anthropology) or into the functions, ecology and adaptations of the organisms themselves. Common areas of investigation are Animal locomotion and feeding, as these have strong connections to the organism’s fitness and impose high mechanical demands. Animal locomotion, has many manifestations, including running, jumping and flying. Locomotion requires energy to overcome friction, drag, inertia, and gravity, though which factor predominates varies with environment.[citation needed] > Comparative biomechanics overlaps strongly with many other fields, including ecology, neurobiology, developmental biology, ethology, and paleontology, to the extent of commonly publishing papers in the journals of these other fields. Comparative biomechanics is often applied in medicine (with regards to common model organisms such as mice and rats) as well as in biomimetics, which looks to nature for solutions to engineering problems.[citation needed] **Computational biomechanics** > Computational biomechanics is the application of engineering computational tools, such as the Finite element method to study the mechanics of biological systems. Computational models and simulations are used to predict the relationship between parameters that are otherwise challenging to test experimentally, or used to design more relevant experiments reducing the time and costs of experiments. Mechanical modeling using finite element analysis has been used to interpret the experimental observation of plant cell growth to understand how they differentiate, for instance.[8] In medicine, over the past decade, the Finite element method has become an established alternative to in vivo surgical assessment. One of the main advantages of computational biomechanics lies in its ability to determine the endo-anatomical response of an anatomy, without being subject to ethical restrictions.[9] > This has led FE modeling (or other discretization techniques) to the point of becoming ubiquitous in several fields of Biomechanics while several projects have even adopted an open source philosophy (e.g. BioSpine)[10] and SOniCS, as well as the SOFA, FEniCS frameworks and FEBio. > Computational biomechanics is an essential ingredient in surgical simulation, which is used for surgical planning, assistance and training. In this case, numerical (discretization) methods are used to compute, as fast as possible, the response of a system to boundary conditions such as forces, heat and mass transfer, electrical and magnetic stimuli. **Continuum biomechanics** > The mechanical analysis of biomaterials and biofluids is usually carried forth with the concepts of continuum mechanics. This assumption breaks down when the length scales of interest approach the order of the micro structural details of the material. One of the most remarkable characteristic of biomaterials is their hierarchical structure. In other words, the mechanical characteristics of these materials rely on physical phenomena occurring in multiple levels, from the molecular all the way up to the tissue and organ levels. more… [Biomechanics - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomechanics#Subfields) ---
**Author:** ![citizenschallengev4](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/citizenschallengev4/32/28718_2.png) [@citizenschallengev4](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/citizenschallengev4)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2024, 9:17pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/metazoa-animal-life-and-the-birth-of-the-mind-peter-godfey-smith/8495/149 "2024-05-30T21:17:37Z")
Cool, good point. Folds within folds of harmonic constructive complexity flowing down the cascade of time. That may be a tad poetic, but it certainly isn’t supernatural, it’s the fabric of our Earth bound reality. ---
**Author:** ![lausten](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/lausten/32/23705_2.png) [@lausten](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/lausten)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2024, 9:48pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/metazoa-animal-life-and-the-birth-of-the-mind-peter-godfey-smith/8495/150 "2024-05-30T21:48:22Z")
> [@citizenschallengev4](#): > > Who’s talking about super natural The video you linked ---
**Author:** ![lausten](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/lausten/32/23705_2.png) [@lausten](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/lausten)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2024, 10:01pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/metazoa-animal-life-and-the-birth-of-the-mind-peter-godfey-smith/8495/151 "2024-05-30T22:01:01Z")
> [@citizenschallengev4](#): > > Are you calling Noble a pseudo-scientist? Are you saying Dawkins is wrong,? ---
**Author:** ![lausten](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/lausten/32/23705_2.png) [@lausten](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/lausten)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2024, 10:45pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/metazoa-animal-life-and-the-birth-of-the-mind-peter-godfey-smith/8495/152 "2024-05-30T22:45:53Z")
> [@citizenschallengev4](#): > > I believe your question (expectation) is theological one and not a realistic scientific or humanistic one. It’s the question that Noble asks to start his discussion about his theory. This one: > Now the big question is how do you explain that without recreating a duality?” He clarifies that he is talking about the body/soul dualism of Christianity. If you are rejecting that, you picked an odd video. ---
**Author:** ![wolfhnd](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/wolfhnd/32/23404_2.png) [@wolfhnd](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/wolfhnd)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2024, 11:51pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/metazoa-animal-life-and-the-birth-of-the-mind-peter-godfey-smith/8495/153 "2024-05-30T23:51:57Z")
> [@lausten](#): > > You don’t answer the question either. You don’t address the organism doing something. I’m going to start with this question or comment because the other comments are going to take me down my usual bunny holes. 🙂 One of the points of solutions without comprehension is that the organism doesn’t have to do anything. All it has to do is wait for randomness to produce something. The organism does have to have an internal environment that makes selections but that doesn’t require comprehension either because the systems evolved in response to the logic of the external environment. What isn’t random is the reproductive fidelity that is built into the system. The point I was trying to make with just the right amount of top down and bottom up design. Top down is the reproductive fidelity and bottom up is the mutations or random events that allows for adaptation or intelligent response to the environment. The principles are fundamental enough that I think you could say that you have big bang and that is it. The universe comes into existence and it doesn’t change after the instant it exists. I’m neutral on whether Quantum uncertainty is “real” or not but it does provide an escape clause. I know you want me to lay out a step by step process but I’m saying it isn’t necessary. I will repeat my example. Darwin didn’t need to know how random mutations took place to come up with the theory of evolution. Ignorance of the details sometimes isn’t a barrier to “understanding”. I wish I had time to address all your comments because they are truth statements. In this conversation I find little to take issue with. That is why I said the philosophical question is what is understanding. My answer is that everything is a matter of degree not kind. For this conversation what degree of consciousness constitutes consciousness. ---
**Author:** ![wolfhnd](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/wolfhnd/32/23404_2.png) [@wolfhnd](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/wolfhnd)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2024, 12:02am UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/metazoa-animal-life-and-the-birth-of-the-mind-peter-godfey-smith/8495/154 "2024-05-31T00:02:04Z")
I don’t have time right now to address you comment. I have to be really careful here and think it through thoroughly. As a starting point I’m thinking of going down this path. Quantum mechanics somehow allows us to have randomness at small scales that we don’t see at larger scales. If we apply that principle to biology we can say that the system are fundamentally dependent on random events but those events are hidden from view. At larger scales everything looks like it conforms to a mechanical view of nature. Here is a bit of philosophy of science for you. Right now most people seem to be stuck with one foot in classical mechanics and one in quantum mechanics and there is no where to move either foot. What Wolfram is trying to do is provide a new place to move a foot. Develop a new philosophy of science if you like. I think he and Dennett are on the right track. You have to have some new way to cut through complexity. ---
**Author:** ![lausten](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/lausten/32/23705_2.png) [@lausten](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/lausten)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2024, 12:54am UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/metazoa-animal-life-and-the-birth-of-the-mind-peter-godfey-smith/8495/155 "2024-05-31T00:54:03Z")
> [@wolfhnd](#): > > I know you want me to lay out a step by step process but I’m saying it isn’t necessary. I don’t think that’s necessary ---
**Author:** ![citizenschallengev4](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/citizenschallengev4/32/28718_2.png) [@citizenschallengev4](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/citizenschallengev4)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2024, 2:09am UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/metazoa-animal-life-and-the-birth-of-the-mind-peter-godfey-smith/8495/156 "2024-05-31T02:09:01Z")
> [@lausten](#): > > Are you saying Dawkins is wrong,? Funny you should ask. I have no idea who Dawkins is at this point. > **[‘Cultural Christian’ Richard Dawkins is ‘Horrified’ at Islam’s Popularity](https://eejjbair.medium.com/cultural-christian-richard-dawkins-is-horrified-at-islam-s-popularity-1f17cabc2779)** > > In a recent interview on LBC, Richard Dawkins, one of the most well-known atheists in the English-speaking world, declared himself a… > [@lausten](#): > > He clarifies that he is talking about the body/soul dualism of Christianity. If you are rejecting that, you picked an odd video. _I didn’t realize what a fancy dancer you can be._ Are we talking about the soul? What is that? Want to talk duality? Human Mindscape, self-awareness, consciousness, soul, whatever you want to call it, and material physical reality and the laws of nature. I don’t understand what all your handwaving is about. What about the duality of matter and energy, why doesn’t that fill philosophers and theologians with inspiration and wonder? ---
**Author:** ![lausten](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/lausten/32/23705_2.png) [@lausten](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/lausten)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2024, 2:34am UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/metazoa-animal-life-and-the-birth-of-the-mind-peter-godfey-smith/8495/157 "2024-05-31T02:34:37Z")
> [@citizenschallengev4](#): > > Are we talking about the soul? > What is that? Christian dualism is a well known concept. I’m sure you know what it is. I’m going back to being a wall flower at this dance. ---
**Author:** ![wolfhnd](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/wolfhnd/32/23404_2.png) [@wolfhnd](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/wolfhnd)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2024, 2:37am UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/metazoa-animal-life-and-the-birth-of-the-mind-peter-godfey-smith/8495/158 "2024-05-31T02:37:05Z")
> [@write4u](#): > > I heard that in biology this is called a flexible data processing system that can switch to a “biomechanical state” that selects for handling the specific data. I had a little time to think about it. What is the difference between a mechanical system and a biological system? Mechanical systems do not make errors. What evolution had to do was find a way to take advantage of errors. That I propose isn’t limited to just the genetic space but to the computational space. > A quantum algorithm takes advantage of this phase relationship among its qubits. It sets up a situation where the correct answer to a calculation constructively interferes and is therefore amplified, while the incorrect answer gets suppressed by destructive interference. > **[How Quantum Computers Will Correct Their Errors | Quanta Magazine](https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-quantum-computers-will-correct-their-errors-20211116/)** > > Quantum bits are fussy and fragile. Useful quantum computers will need to use an error-correction technique like the one that was recently demonstrated on a real machine. Doesn’t that mimic in a way how we understand physical evolution? > Pure, verifiable randomness is hard to come by. Two proposals show how to make quantum computers into randomness factories. > Randomness is crucial for almost everything we do with our computational and communications infrastructure. > **[How to Turn a Quantum Computer Into the Ultimate Randomness Generator |...](https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-to-turn-a-quantum-computer-into-the-ultimate-randomness-generator-20190619/)** > > Pure, verifiable randomness is hard to come by. Two proposals show how to make quantum computers into randomness factories. How much randomness you need may be situational. I’m not sure if ultimate in the above means absolute or better than ever. Philosophically I don’t see why it matters. If the machines we built made errors we would be very unhappy. With the apparent exception of quantum computers :-). The same is true in nature. From DNA coding to behavior. Switch to a “biomechanical state” is no doubt an error suppression technique that prevents the rather error prone cognitive system from going it alone. If it is on all the time however then there would be no behavioral adaptivity. It is what I was talking about with the balancing of top down and bottom up systems. Even cognitive systems are obviously not without their classical mechanic’s “laws”. In fact you would expect them to dominate any system to prevent errors, (not forgoing the above article on error suppression that mimics evolution). I’m not trying to offer an end all explanation just observations. I’m not even all that interested in the theory of everything. What I’m primarily interested in is showing the links between physical and abstract reality and how that influences cultural evolution. To do that I have to get a better understanding of physical evolution. I find your insights useful in that regards. ---
**Author:** ![write4u](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/write4u/32/23410_2.png) [@write4u](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/write4u)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2024, 3:36am UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/metazoa-animal-life-and-the-birth-of-the-mind-peter-godfey-smith/8495/159 "2024-05-31T03:36:04Z")
> [@wolfhnd](#): > > Doesn’t that mimic in a way how we understand physical evolution? Not quite. These abilities are a result of evolution , but used for handling different situations posing “immediate” threats. This shifting of “computational states” seems to be similar to switching apps in computer systems, where the system expects specific data for a specific purpose. Somewhat similar to switching from word processing to number processing. It is an immediate homeostatic response by switching from one biochemical state into another biochemical state that can defend against certain specific threats. An example may be found in evolved tree defense against caterpillar infestation. When a tree becomes infested with caterpillars, the tree switches to a defensive state by producing tannin and other nasty chemicals, randomly distributed throughout its leaves. Caterpillars in turn must switch their entire digestive system to be able to tolerate the tannin. As the caterpillar travels from leaf to leaf, it is presented with a constant switching of its digestive system to accommodate the digestive difference required to feed. This switching process inhibits the caterpillar from its normal feeding routine and the constant switching of digestive states uses an enormous amount of energy and prevents the caterpillar from maturing and metamorphosis. Interestingly, it appears that trees are able to communicate via pheromones with other trees and warn them of a pending threat, which triggers the production of tannin in nearby trees even as these trees are still free from attack. The uninfected trees’ homeostasis switches to a different state in preparation for the attack. A preventive defense! # Mechanisms of plant defense against insect herbivores > **Introduction** > Plants and insects have been living together for more than 350 million years. In co- evolution, both have evolved strategies to avoid each other’s defense systems. > **This evolutionary arms race between plants and insects has resulted in the development of an elegant defense system in plants that has the ability to recognize the nonself molecules or signals from damaged cells, much like the animals, and activates the plant immune response against the herbivores**.1-3 > To counter the herbivore attack, plants produce specialized morphological structures or secondary metabolites and proteins that have toxic, repellent, and/or antinutitional effects on the herbivores.4-6 Plants confront the herbivores both directly by affecting host plant preference or survival and reproductive success (direct defense), and indirectly through other species such as natural enemies of the insect pests (indirect defense).1,7,8 > Direct defenses are mediated by plant characteristics that affect the herbivore’s biology such as mechanical protection on the surface of the plants (e.g., hairs, trichomes, thorns, spines, and thicker leaves) or production of toxic chemicals such as terpenoids, alkaloids, anthocyanins, phenols, and quinones) that either kill or retard the development of the herbivores.9 Indirect defenses against insects are mediated by the release of a blend of volatiles that specifically attract natural enemies of the herbivores and/or by providing food (e.g., extra floral nectar) and housing to enhance the effectiveness of the natural enemies.8 > **[Mechanisms of plant defense against insect herbivores](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3493419/)** > > Plants respond to herbivory through various morphological, biochemicals, and molecular mechanisms to counter/offset the effects of herbivore attack. The biochemical mechanisms of defense against the herbivores are wide-ranging, highly dynamic, and... These are examples of organisms switching homeostatic cellular or neural “states” to handle widely divergent exterior threats from herbivorous insects. p.s. I believe that the distribution of these defensive biochemicals are handled by microtubules . p.p.s. I am enjoying this conversation tremendously. ---
**Author:** ![lausten](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/lausten/32/23705_2.png) [@lausten](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/lausten)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2024, 2:28pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/metazoa-animal-life-and-the-birth-of-the-mind-peter-godfey-smith/8495/160 "2024-05-31T14:28:12Z")
I’m done with this, but I didn’t have time to find the quote last night: > [@citizenschallengev4](#): > > Oh boy, that’s not actually what he said, plus he was quoting a historical figure, not making the claim in itself. Here’s the video. The quote is at 37:20. I’m not sure if YouTube set the timestamp correctly. Note how everyone laughs. [![](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/uploads/centerforinquiry/original/3X/f/5/f53ab02b695a144eea05f6a7da1f9bbb5f665842.jpeg "Dawkins re-examined: Dawkins' legacy") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLC0akD1WOE&t=2240) He doesn’t just say it, he shouts it. Go back 15 minutes for the whole section on this, and tell me again how he is just “quoting a historical figure, not making a claim” I don’t expect you to listen to 48 minute videos I put up, or know the in’s and out’s of every person you link to. What I expect is that you show some respect for the other people on this forum, including me. You have treated me with disdain for about a year now, and as far as I can tell, it’s because I don’t embrace your “divide” narrative. No one is required to like everything you post, or even respond to them at all, or read everything you ever wrote, and certainly not to gain an in-depth understanding of them. What is required, is if someone says, “that guy said X”, and you have no evidence that he didn’t, you don’t respond with “oh boy, that’s not actually what he said”. [Previous page](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/metazoa-animal-life-and-the-birth-of-the-mind-peter-godfey-smith/8495.md?page=7) [Next page](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/metazoa-animal-life-and-the-birth-of-the-mind-peter-godfey-smith/8495.md?page=9)