Panpsychism (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, December 14, 2012, 18:24 (4363 days ago) @ hyjyljyj

Hyjyljyj: I still have this question about cellular metabolism being a de facto indication of intelligence/consciousness belonging to the cell. It could in fact be just that, after all; on the other hand, if something HAS TO function in a certain way due to its form--lesson 1, day 1 of Physiology 101--then need it be intelligent at all? Is it not on auto-pilot? If the cells forming the small intestinal villi, e.g., are shaped and pre-programmed to behave in only one specific fashion when in contact with food particles, cannot refuse to act, and cannot choose or be made to act in some other fashion, then are they not essentially automatons, requiring no actual intelligence to perform their programs?-Thank you for this penetrating observation. I've put the idea forward as an alternative to the theist and atheist explanations, and not as a conviction of my own, but I will happily defend it. The key word above is "pre-programmed". I believe in the theory that all living organisms are descended from earlier organisms. At one time there were no intestines, eyes, limbs, penises etc., so how did each new organ come into existence? The Creationist might tell you that God created it separately. A theistic evolutionist might tell you that God pre-programmed the mechanisms for heredity, adaptation and innovation in such a way that the new organ would come into existence when the time/environment was right. An atheist might tell you that it was due to random mutations. I can't believe any of these, but the organs did come into existence, so the potential must have been present in the structures that preceded them. What I'm offering, then, is the idea that within those mechanisms, in the cells themselves, is a form of inventive "intelligence" that gets them to assemble in new formations. This is not human intelligence, or self-aware intelligence, but if you accept that animals can act intelligently without being self-aware (see my reply to David later), you will understand the parallel. Maybe ants and bees would be the nearest analogy, because cells must also create communities in order to build new organs.
 
Hyjyljyj: Nobody would claim that the mechanical robots in a car factory that pick up parts, paint them and then assemble them gently are either conscious of it or are doing so out of intelligence; the intelligence lies wholly in the minds that designed them. -An excellent parallel. The robot is designed by us, and we call it artificial intelligence. The parallel here would be God the Creator preprogramming the original cells so that one day their descendants would produce, say, a light-sensitive nerve which later descendants would be pre-programmed to develop into an eye (Darwin's prime example of a difficult organ to explain). All the generations of cells would then be automata. The alternative is a mechanism (whether created by God or not) within the cells that has no particular aim in mind, but has the potential to produce no matter what. The decision to produce an eye (remember, eyes have never existed before) would then come from the un-pre-programmed cells themselves. No automaton could do this.
 
Of course in your post you are thinking ahead to when the cell community has already formed the eye, and it automatically functions as programmed by that cell community. You can call it artificial intelligence if you like, but it's still intelligence, and unless you believe in God's interfering or God's pre-programming, you will have to accept that the programme itself was set up by the cells. It is the cells (just like the communities of ants and bees) that determine from the outset what function each one is to perform. Innovation doesn't come from robots. -*****-DAVID: No this is a mistaken idea, for all you are describing is instinct, with the animals acting as automatons. It is the creation of the automatic responses that are the wonders.-Animals are not automata. They have emotions, willpower, the ability to take decisions and even to solve problems. But much of their behaviour, just like our own, is indeed governed by instinct, which is a form of intelligence that functions without self-analysis (in some instances, we call it intuition).
 
The creation of these responses, and indeed of every innovation you can think of, is indeed the wonder. Was their creation the result of God interfering, God preprogramming every single detail (which he would have to do if the mechanism itself didn't take the decisions), blind chance (= random mutations), or the innovative but unselfconscious intelligence of the cells forming new combinations? Four hypotheses. Take your pick, or sit on the fence with me.