Viruses: Created, Evolved, or Both?

[Data]

I'm somewhat more conversant on the subject than evolution and I thought this was an interesting question from an atheist vs theist perspective. Did God create viruses or did they evolve. My position is both. God created them and in the microevolutionary sense they evolved.

[mgb]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #50]

That's the funny thing about reality; it doen't care what we think.

Well, you think, for example, the The Marx Brothers are a molecular construction.
How does evolution explain comedy? It can't. (But don't show this post to anybody, they'll come up with a 'comedy gene').

Evolution does not require new mutations.

You are being absolutist here. You should say Evolution does not necessarily require new mutations.
And that simple caveat changes the meaning of the conversation. I am using the 'Gene of the Gaps' theory to
underline the materialistic dogmatism of ToE; it is tacitly assumed that all kinds of things can be explained
by genes and processes that you mention and the evidence is simply not there. You people actually believe that
a person (who writes classical music, for example) is a collection of molecules. You really do. Do you ever reflect
on the ramifications of what you believe? eg. What is comedy? Do molecules write poetry?

Humans are biological entities, so biology is involved in everything.

You don't know that. They could be, primarily, spiritual entities.

You brought him [Dawkins] up. How about we deal with the issue on the table?

Well, he is one of the more rabid materialists which are the ones who misrepresent so much.

Genes are, after all, composed of atoms. So atoms ultimately are understood to be at the base of all human abilities

You said 'all' human abilities. I'll get back to this in a moment when I address your link on math ability...

The mind is not merely an epiphenomenon of the brain, but that's one of the things it is.

This is exactly the kind of statement that I have a problem with: You won't think outside the materialistic box.
What if the brain is 'within' the mind? What if it is a physical analogue of mind?

Let me put it this way. Physical objects are not ultimate realities; there is no ultimate physical substance.
The idea that matter is ultimate is a result of our naive physical senses; our senses tell us there is some
kind of physical stuff that everything is made of. But science has discovered that matter is not a substance.
The hydrogen atom is a pattern of energy. It is an image, that is all. The only substance there is energy, not
some kind of material stuff. The image of a hydrogen atom is 'within' a field of energy. Likewise with all physical
images, including the brain.

Materialists are breaking one of the most basic rules of science when they present 'evidence' that the brain is thinking.
The rule is; Correlation is not necessarily causation. Simply correlating brain activity with thought processes does not
mean the brain is thinking. If somebody is typing words on a computer you can't just correlate the words with physical
activity in the computer and assume the computer is composing the text, no matter how exact the physical analogues are.

Dogmatism has a hard time in the sciences, because of a reliance on evidence.

Not true. The way in which evidence is interpreted can be very dogmatic. There are many ways in which evidence can be interpreted.
(eg, see my last answer).

Unfortunate example...

Neurobiological origins of individual differences in mathematical ability
Mathematical ability is heritable and related to several genes expressing proteins in the brain. It is unknown, however, which intermediate neural phenotypes could explain how these genes relate to mathematical ability.

This is exactly what I've been talking about in the last few posts: Evidence vs. interpretation of evidence. Correlation vs causation.

Here's a quote from the abstract

"We found that ROBO1, a gene known to regulate prenatal growth of cerebral cortical layers, is associated with the volume of the right parietal cortex, a key region for quantity representation. Individual volume differences in this region predicted up to a fifth of the behavioral variance in mathematical ability. Our findings indicate that a fundamental genetic component of the quantity processing system is rooted in the early development of the parietal cortex."

The key phrase is 'is associated with'. That is, correlated with. Correlation is not necessarily causation. This is exactly the problem I have with the way a lot of science is presented.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #50]

That's the funny thing about reality; it doen't care what we think.

Well, you think, for example, the The Marx Brothers are a molecular construction.

They were all composed of molecules. But as you learned, that's not what made them the Marx Brothers.

How does evolution explain comedy? It can't.

I don't know anyone who can. But there's hint in the fact that other apes have a sense of humor. It certainly appears that dogs have a sense of humor.

(But don't show this post to anybody, they'll come up with a 'comedy gene').

For instance, humor helps establish social bonds. 23andMe researchers looking at data from customers who have consented to participate in research found interesting genetic associations with having a sense of humor that centers on brain development, cognitive function, and intelligence. One of the strongest associations we found for a person’s ability to get a joke was in a gene that is important for neurodevelopment and a significant player in autism.

https://blog.23andme.com/articles/does- ... ke-you-lol

One study of 55 male comedians found they had IQs well above average.
The smarter a comedian is, the better they are at producing high-quality humor.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... creativity

Evolution does not require new mutations.

You are being absolutist here.

It's absolutely true. Even in the total absence of new mutations, a significant change in environment will change the allele frequencies in a population in that environment.

I am using the 'Gene of the Gaps' theory to underline the materialistic dogmatism of ToE;

Seeing as Darwin himself wrote that God created the first living things, that would be like blaming drafts in your house on orange leprechauns hiding in your attic.

it is tacitly assumed that all kinds of things can be explained by genes and processes that you mention and the evidence is simply not there.

You are being absolutist here; almost all biologists will tell you, for example, that human behavior and intelligence are determined more by environment than by genes.

You people actually believe that a person (who writes classical music, for example) is a collection of molecules.

All humans are composed of molecules. Your error is in supposing that means that humans are merely collections of molecules. Emergent properties of matter are quite a different thing beyond mere materialism.

Smaller parts combine to make increasingly complex systems. An emergent property is a characteristic an entity gains when it becomes part of a bigger system. Emergent properties help living organisms better adapt to their environments and increase their chances of survival.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... es+biology

Do you ever reflect on the ramifications of what you believe?

It's one of the reasons I visit here.

eg. What is comedy?

A type of literature or theater. Perhaps you mean "what is humor?"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... lish/humor

Do molecules write poetry?

Poetry seems to be an emergent property of a human nervous system.

Humans are biological entities, so biology is involved in everything.

You don't know that.

Observably so.

They could be, primarily, spiritual entities.

We are. There is no contradiction here, although the nature of the body/soul interactions are a mystery.

You brought him [Dawkins] up. How about we deal with the issue on the table?

Well, he is one of the more rabid materialists which are the ones who misrepresent so much.

He says it's possible that God exists.

Genes are, after all, composed of atoms. So atoms ultimately are understood to be at the base of all human abilities

The mind is not merely an epiphenomenon of the brain, but that's one of the things it is.

This is exactly the kind of statement that I have a problem with: You won't think outside the materialistic box.

That statement is an affirmation of something beyond mere materialism. Read it again.

What if the brain is 'within' the mind?

Since there is confirmation of mental processes outside the brain...

What if it is a physical analogue of mind?

Inadequate for that, I think. Perhaps you should read Douglas Hoffstader's The Mind's I, for some different perspectives on this issue.

Let me put it this way. Physical objects are not ultimate realities; there is no ultimate physical substance.

In the sense that at the smallest level, matter is energy in various configurations.

Dogmatism has a hard time in the sciences, because of a reliance on evidence.

Not true.

Very true. It's why theories are being continuously revised or even abandoned for better ones, as we learn more.

The way in which evidence is interpreted can be very dogmatic.

That's human to do so. But the problem is, the theory has to work. And when it no longer works, then something must change. Newton's theory of gravitation, for example, fails to account for very fast objects, and so it was modified by relativity. Science is, at the bottom, a pragmatic enterprise, holding onto ideas only so long as they work.

There are many ways in which evidence can be interpreted.

Neurobiological origins of individual differences in mathematical ability
Mathematical ability is heritable and related to several genes expressing proteins in the brain. It is unknown, however, which intermediate neural phenotypes could explain how these genes relate to mathematical ability.

This is exactly what I've been talking about in the last few posts: Evidence vs. interpretation of evidence. Correlation vs causation.

No, and I'll show you shortly...

Here's a quote from the abstract

"We found that ROBO1, a gene known to regulate prenatal growth of cerebral cortical layers, is associated with the volume of the right parietal cortex, a key region for quantity representation. Individual volume differences in this region predicted up to a fifth of the behavioral variance in mathematical ability. Our findings indicate that a fundamental genetic component of the quantity processing system is rooted in the early development of the parietal cortex."

Kinda like huge muscles are correlated with the ability to exert greater force. I happen to have a mutant gene for myostatin that inhibits this muscle-reducing substance. Myostatin is why humans are weaker than other apes. I'm considerably stronger than most people my age. Strength is correlated with this gene.

The key phrase is 'is associate with'. That is, correlated with. Correlation is not necessarily causation.

Not necessarily. It's always possible that both factors depend on a third something. Classic example, is the fact that health problems are associated with living very close to high-voltage power lines. It turns out that people in lower socioeconomic groups are more likely to live near such lines. And that group tends to have poorer health, presumably from job exposures and worse medical care.

However, it is established that larger muscles do cause greater strength, and a more robust right parietal cortex does allow one to visualize quantities more easily. Hence, it's very hard to see how the myostatin mutation or the gene that enlarges a part of the brain involved with mathematical thinking, would not make one stronger/more capable at math.

This is exactly the problem I have with the way a lot of science is presented.

Normally, this kind of thing is due to poor reasoning. Like the group in WWII that analyzed damage patterns from flak on bombers returning form raids. They suggested reinforcing those areas. Do you see the error here?

[mgb]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #52]

They were all composed of molecules. But as you learned, that's not what made them the Marx Brothers.

But no matter how much environmental factors influence molecules they are still a bunch of molecules. How does ToE explain
comedy? It doesn't. Any attempt to do so will assert that molecular structures have a sense of humor. If this is what your world
view has you believing you should try another angle.

But there's hint in the fact that other apes have a sense of humor. It certainly appears that dogs have a sense of humor.

That is also a hint that animals have spirits/souls. Depends on how you interpret the evidence. Too many people use expressions like 'evidence for' or 'the evidence shows'. Evidence is data and facts, this data has to be interpreted. What people really mean is that 'my interpretation of the evidence/facts suggest to me that...etc' And that's a whole different kettle of fish.

Even in the total absence of new mutations, a significant change in environment will change the allele frequencies in a population in that environment.

So? That does not change the substance of my objections.

almost all biologists will tell you, for example, that human behavior and intelligence are determined more by environment than by genes.

I have no problem in believing the environment can encourage whatever potential is there. The question is this: What is this potential, a molecular structure, or mind?

Poetry seems to be an emergent property of a human nervous system.

Said in a truly materialistic spirit (or is that a contradiction in terms?).
Poetry, like all art forms, is a translation of consciousness into a sophisticated language that can animate the audience's consciousness so they experience something of what the artist's consciousness experienced in the first place.

The mind is not merely an epiphenomenon of the brain, but that's one of the things it is.

Rather, the brain is a physical analogue of mind, roughly the way a computer is. The brain is part of the process of translating spiritual consciousness into human terms.

It's always possible that both factors depend on a third something. Classic example, is the fact that health problems are associated with living very close to high-voltage power lines. It turns out that people in lower socioeconomic groups are more likely to live near such lines.

True but with neuroscience it is so mind-numbingly complex it is next to impossible to disentangle correlation from direct causation. I constantly hear about all this science that 'shows' such and such and when I read the article - correlation, statistics, one-dimensional interpretation of the evidence etc. etc. I once saw a program on tv with S. Hawking 'explaining' how we have no free will because a guy went to the fridge and subconsciously chose a certain drink because it had an unconscious association with pleasant memories. So we have no free will. Jesus wept. That Hawking guy was one of the worst.

Normally, this kind of thing is due to poor reasoning. Like the group in WWII that analyzed damage patterns from flak on bombers returning form raids. They suggested reinforcing those areas. Do you see the error here?

Yes that's what I am objecting to; poor reasoning. And people who should know better do it all too often. Do I see the error? Yes, the ones that did not return were blown out of the sky, but I must have read the same book as you did.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #52]

They were all composed of molecules. But as you learned, that's not what made them the Marx Brothers.

But no matter how much environmental factors influence molecules they are still a bunch of molecules.

But of course, that's not all they were. And that makes all the difference.

How does ToE explain comedy?

Theories are only accountable for the predictions they make. Thought you knew.

Any attempt to do so will assert that molecular structures have a sense of humor.

This is like saying that goods and services have a sense of optimizations. You're ignoring the emergent properties of such systems.

If this is what your world view has you believing...

If you invent silly ideas and attribute them to other people, you should try another angle.

But there's hint in the fact that other apes have a sense of humor. It certainly appears that dogs have a sense of humor.

That is also a hint that animals have spirits/souls.

I'd be open to your demonstration that a soul is required for a sense of humor.

Even in the total absence of new mutations, a significant change in environment will change the allele frequencies in a population in that environment.

So?

It refutes your assertion that mutations are required for evolution. They aren't even required for macroevolution.

Almost all biologists will tell you, for example, that human behavior and intelligence are determined more by environment than by genes.

I have no problem in believing the environment can encourage whatever potential is there. The question is this: What is this potential...

It is having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future.

Poetry seems to be an emergent property of a human nervous system.

Said in a truly materialistic spirit

Don't see how. After all, it's not something inherent in matter. It's something inherent in humans. Now if you're still convinced that humans are only matter, that's a problem. But not for those of us who see humans as more than matter.

Poetry, like all art forms, is a translation of consciousness into a sophisticated language

So people lacking "sophisticated language" can't do poetry? Explain that to the man from Nantucket.

Landscape of Years presents uneven ground;
among the pits and crags bright treasure lies.
But it is rare and and far more rarely found.
And found not long before the brightness dies.

Alone without a guide we mostly go.
Distractions come with every darkened bend
Betraying plans we make before we know
where any such digressions come to end.

I knew so little when my walk was new
I learned so slowly as I went along.
So willful and undisciplined, it's true.
So many times my choices turned out wrong.

The means by which at last I came this far,
I kept my eye upon Your constant star.

So was this the product of a conscious entity? How do you know?

The mind is not merely an epiphenomenon of the brain, but that's one of the things it is.

Rather, the brain is a physical analogue of mind

Brain structure is inadequate to model the mind. There are other material factors to mind than merely the brain.

The brain is part of the process of translating spiritual consciousness into human terms.

Why would you think spiritual consciousness is not human?

It's always possible that both factors depend on a third something. Classic example, is the fact that health problems are associated with living very close to high-voltage power lines. It turns out that people in lower socioeconomic groups are more likely to live near such lines.

True but with neuroscience it is so mind-numbingly complex it is next to impossible to disentangle correlation from direct causation.

And yet we can show that certain genes affect math aptitude.

Do I see the error? Yes, the ones that did not return were blown out of the sky, but I must have read the same book as you did.

My wife's uncle was a navigator in WWII. Supposedly, his bombardier was Tennessee Ernie Ford, but I can't verify that. He told stories. That was one of them.

[Jose Fly]

This is exactly what I've been talking about in the last few posts: Evidence vs. interpretation of evidence. Correlation vs causation.

Here's a quote from the abstract

"We found that ROBO1, a gene known to regulate prenatal growth of cerebral cortical layers, is associated with the volume of the right parietal cortex, a key region for quantity representation. Individual volume differences in this region predicted up to a fifth of the behavioral variance in mathematical ability. Our findings indicate that a fundamental genetic component of the quantity processing system is rooted in the early development of the parietal cortex."

The key phrase is 'is associated with'. That is, correlated with. Correlation is not necessarily causation. This is exactly the problem I have with the way a lot of science is presented.

Did you read the full paper?

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/a ... io.3000871

When you read the whole thing, it's clear how their work builds on a lot of previous work, and they also recommend additional research in the future. The history of research into this question is pretty fascinating and is exactly how science is supposed to operate. It basically goes like....

Scientists hypothesized that brain development affects math ability.

So they looked to see if any specific parts of the brain are correlated with math ability and found that the right parietal cortex is.

Then they looked at what parts of the human genome play a role in development of the right parietal cortex.

So these researchers looked at variations in those genes that play a role in development of the right parietal cortex and found that some variations are associated with different development levels of that part of the brain.

They also looked to see if children with a more developed right parietal cortex were better at math (prior to getting instruction in math). They were.

They also noted how the variations in ROBO1 predict up to a fifth of the variability in math abilities in children, which suggest other factors are involved as well.


So it's not quite as you depicted, where they merely established a statistical correlation and on that basis alone declared "math ability is genetic". Also, while we're all familiar with the saying "correlation doesn't prove causation", in science there's a second part to that....correlation doesn't prove causation, unless you can demonstrate a mechanism. If there's an actual identified mechanism that accounts for the correlation, that's good evidence of causation.

[mgb]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #54]

I'd be open to your demonstration that a soul is required for a sense of humor.

I have mentioned comedy a number of times because I think comedy/humor is one of the most advanced
expressions of art and intelligence. I don't accept molecules can think. I don't believe molecules can
constitute a mind. I understand what you are saying about environmental factors on the growth of the intelligence etc.
but environmental factors can only operate on what is already there, in this case, molecules. So, when the
envronment has done its job you still only have molecules and you are arguing, by extension, that molecules are smart.
They can write poetry. So I'm not convinced by your argument that mind is some kind of epiphenomena because you are
still arguing that brain = mind. No amount of environmental factors can extract intelligence from molecules or make them smart.

Environmental factors do encourage intelligence by acting on a the potential that is already there (ie, mind).

Almost all biologists will tell you, for example, that human behavior and intelligence are determined more by environment than by genes.

"Determined"? I would say influenced. See last post. Environment does not create intelligence.

It [mind/potential] is having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future.

Poetry seems to be an emergent property of a human nervous system.

I am asking what is the substance of mind. Don't say molecules.
Poetry is the intelligence operating on the mind's consciousness of spiritual reality.
If you ask me for proof of spiritual reality I will tell you to read poetry. Listen to the Elizabethan Serenade.

Here's a joke-

Teacher: Let X equal the number of sheep
Pupil: But what if X is not the number of sheep?

After all, it's not something inherent in matter. It's something inherent in humans. Now if you're still convinced that humans are only matter, that's a problem. But not for those of us who see humans as more than matter.

Well, what do you mean by more than matter? Epiphenomena? I see humans as non material mind/spirit.

So was this the product of a conscious entity? How do you know?

Well if this is a trick question with some computery poetry it will serve no purpose. Even computers can't write poetry
without being highly trained by humans so it gets too murky to speak intelligably about it.

Why would you think spiritual consciousness is not human?

Not physical? A million reasons. In the beginning there is no matter but there is mind.
The evidence for the existence of mind is summed up, largely, by the Fine Tuning argument and many many other arguments.
The mind is conscious and it is a living thing, independent of the brain.
Physical consciousness - the 5 senses - are a crude imitation of the mind's consciousness. They allow the
mind to experience the physical world in physical terms.

And yet we can show that certain genes affect math aptitude.

These arguments are deep. I can show that a key can allow a door to be opened.
So keys open doors right? NO, NO, NO. People open doors. The key is only one item in a whole chain of events.
Keys make it possible to open doors. Genes make it possible to...etc.
Do you see where this is going? It is frightfully difficult stuff. A gene is only one link in a chain of events
that are very poorly understood.

My wife's uncle was a navigator in WWII. Supposedly, his bombardier was Tennessee Ernie Ford, but I can't verify that. He told stories.

Interesting. I read about the shot up planes only very recently in a pop science book on statistics.

[mgb]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #55]
I'll give you a quick run down on how I see these things.
Suppose you have a mind, a living spirit that is, as yet, non physical.
This mind is very intelligent and it wants to enter physical existence to gain experience.

If it becomes a mosquito it might be disappointed. Why? Because the physical mosquito is not sophisticated enough to do justice to the mind's ability; The mosquito is not evolved enough to allow enough mind to enter the physical world.

Suppose the mind becomes a dog. Dogs are complex and are therefore capable of allowing more of the mind to become manifest in physical terms.

Now suppose the mind decides to become a human being. A Ramanujan or Einstein or Da Vinci. A great deal of mind can 'pour' through complex physical systems. So you can see where this is going: A physical system, with it genes, hormones, chemicals etc can, if configured in the right way, act as keys to open doors and allow the mind into the physical world. A dramatic illustration of this is how some chemicals, legal and illegal, can radically alter the mind. A flood of mental ability can come through. The mathematician Paul Erdos, when he was aging, complained that without Amphetamines he was unable to do math. When he took them he was as good as new. Chemicals are keys that can reconfigure the brain and open doors so the mind's abilities come through. But you would not say that chemicals "create intelligence". They only reconfigure the mind/brain interface. Now consider how genes affect mental abilities in the light of this. It is really complex stuff trying to interpret what these neuro experiments mean.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #54]

I'd be open to your demonstration that a soul is required for a sense of humor.

I have mentioned comedy a number of times because I think comedy/humor is one of the most advanced
expressions of art and intelligence. I don't accept molecules can think. I don't believe molecules can
constitute a mind. I understand what you are saying about environmental factors on the growth of the intelligence etc.
but environmental factors can only operate on what is already there, in this case, molecules. So, when the
envronment has done its job you still only have molecules and you are arguing, by extension, that molecules are smart.

So you're claiming that in a market economy, dollars are smart. Are you very sure of that? You keep colliding with the phenomenon of emergent properties:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7597170/

They can write poetry. So I'm not convinced by your argument that mind is some kind of epiphenomena because you are
still arguing that brain = mind.

I already told you that the brain is inadequate by itself to explain mind. You seem to be arguing with yourself.

No amount of environmental factors can extract intelligence from molecules or make them smart.

And yet, God can take dirt and make sentient beings. He made the universe so that would happen.

Environmental factors do encourage intelligence by acting on a the potential that is already there (ie, mind).

And as you learned, environment is more important than genes in determining intelligence and behavior in humans.

Almost all biologists will tell you, for example, that human behavior and intelligence are determined more by environment than by genes.

"Determined"? I would say influenced.

That's a testable belief. And twin studies, keeping track of socio-economic factors, show that environment determines more of human intelligence than genes.

Environment does not create intelligence.

It merely determines more of it than genes do.

Poetry seems to be an emergent property of a human nervous system.

I am asking what is the substance of mind. Don't say molecules.

Why would you assume that nothing exists if it's not substantial?

Poetry is the intelligence operating on the mind's consciousness of spiritual reality.
If you ask me for proof of spiritual reality I will tell you to read poetry. Listen to the Elizabethan Serenade.

I just showed you an Elizabethian sonnet, and you were unable to tell me if it was produced by an intelligent agent or not.

After all, it's not something inherent in matter. It's something inherent in humans. Now if you're still convinced that humans are only matter, that's a problem. But not for those of us who see humans as more than matter.

Well, what do you mean by more than matter?

Things that are not composed of matter.

So was this the product of a conscious entity? How do you know?

Well if this is a trick question with some computery poetry it will serve no purpose. Even computers can't write poetry
without being highly trained by humans so it gets too murky to speak intelligably about it.

If you can't tell the difference, what makes you think there is one?
Why would you think spiritual consciousness is not human?

Not physical?

No. Not human. Why would you think it's not human?

A million reasons.

One compelling one would work.

In the beginning there is no matter but there is mind.

This is a belief. And God (for example) says in the Beginning there was matter. I believe Him.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. 2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

The evidence for the existence of mind is summed up, largely, by the Fine Tuning argument and many many other arguments.

Philosophical debates in which “fine-tuning” appears are often about the universe’s fine-tuning for life: according to many physicists, the fact that the universe is able to support life depends delicately on various of its fundamental characteristics, notably on the form of the laws of nature, on the values of some constants of nature, and on aspects of the universe’s conditions in its very early stages. Various reactions to the universe’s fine-tuning for life have been proposed: that it is a lucky coincidence which we have to accept as a primitive given; that it will be avoided by future best theories of fundamental physics; that the universe was created by some divine designer who established life-friendly conditions; and that fine-tuning for life indicates the existence of multiple other universes with conditions very different from those in our own universe.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/

The mind is conscious and it is a living thing, independent of the brain.

Occasionally a human is born without a brain. Can you show that they have a mind?

We can show that certain genes affect math aptitude.

These arguments are deep. I can show that a key can allow a door to be opened.

But a key requires an agent to physically employ it, while genes don't require someone to use genes to make intelligence. I would have thought that this would be obvious.

Do you see where this is going?

BTW, the sonnet is mine.

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #55]
I'll give you a quick run down on how I see these things.
Suppose you have a mind, a living spirit that is, as yet, non physical.
This mind is very intelligent and it wants to enter physical existence to gain experience.

If it becomes a mosquito it might be disappointed. Why? Because the physical mosquito is not sophisticated enough to do justice to the mind's ability; The mosquito is not evolved enough to allow enough mind to enter the physical world.

Suppose the mind becomes a dog. Dogs are complex and are therefore capable of allowing more of the mind to become manifest in physical terms.

Now suppose the mind decides to become a human being. A Ramanujan or Einstein or Da Vinci. A great deal of mind can 'pour' through complex physical systems. So you can see where this is going: A physical system, with it genes, hormones, chemicals etc can, if configured in the right way, act as keys to open doors and allow the mind into the physical world. A dramatic illustration of this is how some chemicals, legal and illegal, can radically alter the mind. A flood of mental ability can come through. The mathematician Paul Erdos, when he was aging, complained that without Amphetamines he was unable to do math. When he took them he was as good as new. Chemicals are keys that can reconfigure the brain and open doors so the mind's abilities come through. But you would not say that chemicals "create intelligence". They only reconfigure the mind/brain interface. Now consider how genes affect mental abilities in the light of this. It is really complex stuff trying to interpret what these neuro experiments mean.

Looks to me like your real aim here is to find ways to justify belief in gods. I'm not interested in that. My interest was in clarifying the contents of the paper that was being discussed.