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

by David Turell , Tuesday, February 05, 2013, 15:40 (4307 days ago) @ dhw


> 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.
> 
> dhw: How do the theologians know? And why do you believe them?-This becomes an area of faith-based reasoning, which is beyond your position. It is logical once a first cause of this type is accepted. God is a simple concept, His results are very complex.- 
> 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.-Information is of several types: descriptive, or analytic; functional or planning; historical or retrospective. There are probably more forms of information but you can see that the word information is very encompassing. For God or first cause I can believe in a planning, analytic mind a a source of the info needed. If chance doesn't work, and you doubt that it does, than planning must occur. And that plan must be analyzed by a thoughtful self-aware mind. That is how my mind works, and I assume the universal mind is a pattern for mine. 
> 
> dhw: 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.-'Self-aware matter', as a theory, is simply an extension of my UI as in pansychism. My table is not aware of anything. My computer is, and living matter certainly is. But neither of the latter have the kind of self-awareness I have. I don't know how to define 'intelligent but not self-aware matter'. My dog fits that phrase to a degree. To me true planning intelligence requires a mind that is introspective, not my dog's. And you saw how I answered George. Information is not self-creating. It must have a source. This is the nub of the entire Intelligent Design thesis.