Natural Teleology: More Thomas Nagel (The limitations of science)

by dhw, Tuesday, February 05, 2013, 11:42 (4307 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: I cannot see why the idea that matter combines itself in "intelligent" ways should be regarded as more complex than the idea of an infinite and eternal, self-aware intellect, with no provenance, that deliberately creates universes on the one hand and DNA on the other. -DAVID: There is a whole section of theological thought that describes God as very simple. It is the result of that simplicity's actions that you view as very complex.-How do the theologians know? And why do you believe them? But if this sort of argument satisfies you, what could be simpler than mindless energy? Even simpler than energy with a mind! As you say, it is the result of that simplicity's actions that you view as very complex.-****-dhw: I don't agree that only an intellect can create information. Information is everywhere, even in a grain of sand, though it takes an intellect of some kind to extract, evaluate and use it.-DAVID: A grain of sand is the result of erosion of rock which came from lava orginally. It has a crystallin structure, which is pretty but does not contain information of any use other than descriptive.-Dhw: [...] As is so often the case, a buzz word enters the debate, and today it's "information". Descriptive information is information, so what do you mean by "information" when you say only an intellect can create it? (I presume that by intellect you mean a self-aware intelligence.)-I eagerly await your definition of "information". Meanwhile, George has made a similar point: -GEORGE: I've never understood this creationist claim that 'information' cannot increase except by the intervention of a creative mind. It seems to me this is exactly what evolution does: build up more complex structures which must therefore contain more information ... or certainly require more information to describe how they work.-David, you cite the complexity of the first living cells as your reason for not believing in chance ... and I'm certainly not going to disagree with you. I would just like to point out yet again that a single, universal, eternal, self-aware creative mind is not the only possible explanation. In my post of 4 February at 12.39, as requested, I described an alternative process of evolution on a cosmic scale (rather less scientific than Smolin's!) through "intelligent" but not self-aware matter. Your ... to me surprising ... response is reproduced at the start of this post. I can only repeat that all these theories (God, chance, variants of panpsychism) require faith, and I really cannot see why one faith should take precedence over another.