Trilobite eyes (Introduction)

by David Turell , Friday, March 29, 2013, 21:44 (4258 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Of course there are many versions of panpsychism, which is why I put mine in inverted commas. I note that you have not yet commented on a remark by another of your recommended authors, Stephen L. Talbott, who having delved deep into the complexities of the genome, writes: "...you will not find me speaking of design, simply because [...] organisms cannot be understood as having been designed, machine-like, whether by an engineer-God or a Blind Watchmaker elevated to god-like status. If organisms participate in a higher life, it is a participation that works from within..." (see my post of 26 March at 14.46).-Talbott has made the point that the molecules of the genome are a finely tuned orchestra, and that Watson and Crick and those that followed had no sense of imagination, a common problem in today's scientists grounded in methodological reductionist materialism. The complexity is truly staggering. It is an orchestra of molecules all acting under physico-chemical controls. So far the essence of life, the conductor, is not seen, but felt by looking/watching all the moving parts. There may not be a conductor on site in the individual cell, but the essence of life as created by the conductor'score! The victory of life as in Beethoven's Fifth. Only a genius could have directed the 'score' of life's music. Talbott was not defining any version of panpsychism. He was directing us at the scored complexity of life, to my mind directing us to appreciate the planning and not miss the forest for the trees. Both Tony and I are trying to provide you with the proper logical compass to see the intelligence behind the plan.-Just a reminder, life started this complex. It had to. Anything less is not living. Therefore the intelligence that did the score for the orchestra of life had to be that complex, from the beginning! If by pansychism you are using a definition of intelligence by dribs and drabs, here and there, at any stage in the development of life, then your theory doesn't fit Talbott's essay. Talbott did not write this essay to drive folks to God, but to demand that we shift our attention to the developing overall picture. As for his theology, I have no clue, but hiss essay strongly supports a belief in God.