A Panpsychist Hypothesis (General)

by David Turell , Monday, June 23, 2014, 15:32 (3589 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: I've simply been trying to point out that your God hypothesis is no more logical than the alternative which you have dismissed. The only intelligence we know of (our own and that of our fellow creatures) is a potential that develops accumulatively through experience of things that already exist.-This is an anthropomorphic analysis. First cause (God) need not follow this humanized example. My first cause has consciousness and the necessary information to start a universe and start life from inorganic matter. 
 
> 
> dhw: I'm glad to see that "trial and error" is becoming more prominent in your argument, as opposed to the know-it-all version of your God.....If you are now saying that he did NOT have all the information, but gradually learned from his experiences with matter, you can allow for the possibility (which is all I'm asking) that eternal energy had no information at all until it turned into matter. The two hypotheses then begin to converge.-Again the same mistake in analysis. If I am working backward from what I see, I think First Cause (God) had consciousness and information before creating the universe and life. Creation implies that requirement. However, I know evolutionary processes were used for both the universe and for development of life's variety. Threfore it is entirely possible that some information had to be developed during the evolutions, which info was then acted upon. Do not cloud your mind with religions' view of God as all-knowing, present and into the future, and all-powerful. That is human wishful thinking. I start from my own observations only. 
> 
> dhw: Why is there a need for faith? why do you "need" to choose one illogical hypothesis in preference to another-> DAVID: Simple: I have a conclusion that fits the known facts as I see them. That conclusion, which I reached over a number of years of reading, feels good to me, and I have faith that I am right. It is OK that you cannot do that.
> 
> dhw: A nice response.-Thank you. I think your childhood background in religion clouds your ability to analyze. Start from a fresh beginning, avoid humanizing, and you might come up with my pattern of thought.