Cell Memories (Identity)

by David Turell , Sunday, October 13, 2013, 21:51 (3840 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: You have described what you believe to be the biochemical mechanism from which consciousness EMERGES. That makes it a producer not a receiver. My two questions remain unanswered.-The hypothesis which I think might be reasonable is that the brain is a complex radio receiver and it uses a workable consciousness that is received via the universal consciousness, and individually modifies what is received into the 'self' consciousness we perceive within ourselves. Since I have no idea how conscousness develops or emerges, it is an intereesting theory, voiced by many authors in the field of consciousness study.
> 
> dhw: Let me get this straight: God pervades everything, which means he pervades our cells, and so although according to you our consciousness (which with all its manifestations constitutes most of our identity) is produced by biochemistry, what is produced is an entity that can live independently of our biochemistry because...because...biochemistry has produced...what? A new piece of the universal consciousness which was already inside the producer? Do you not find this confusing?-Not confusing, as described above by you and by me. No more confusing than your independent cells which are master architects of complex organs, like kidneys.
> 
> DAVID: How the biochemistry acts to allow consciousness is explained above, not that we understand how it emerges.[/i]
> 
> dhw: "Allow" consciousness is a strange expression. I'm not sure what it implies. -I've explained the radio receiver concept.-
> dhw:As for your theory, it is consistent so long as you do not have to explain its inconsistencies. I accept that there must be a first cause, though we can't possibly know what it is. I accept that we cannot understand the emergence of life and consciousness. And I accept that if there is an afterlife, we do not know how the identity can survive the death of the body. That is why I remain open-minded on these subjects. I think you too should accept that you are "in puzzlement". I have great respect for your faith and for your hypotheses, but I am also prepared to consider alternative hypotheses. -I would not attack if the 'intelligent cells' were not such an amorphous concept with no grounding in what we know about the genome and biochemical automatic signalling. Again, you are seeking a middle ground between chance or design when yhour middle ground is not grounded in the science we know. 
 
> 
> I offer it as an alternative to your version. You want a top down solution because you believe in a god. That doesn't mean that a top down solution is any more or any less likely to be accurate than a bottom up solution. You believe that evolution follows intelligent plans, but some people believe it follows its own course without any overall plans. That is why we are having this discussion.-I understand our differences.
> 
> dhw: in this hypothetical version the cells are not dancing around trying this and that, trial and error. That is indeed pure Darwin (= random mutations). Instead of randomness, and instead of your divine preprogramming of every innovation right from the start, this hypothesis suggests cells may have an intelligence of their own, and through cooperation between billions of such intelligences over billions of years, there have emerged increasingly complex organisms culminating (so far) in ourselves. This intelligence may even have been engineered by your God. Like Darwin's own theory, the hypothesis deals only with evolution and not with the origin of life and intelligence.-And I will answer, cells need an overall plan to follow to make a kidney or a liver. You have not explained the actual mechanism of their planning and manufacturing sessions. Just conjuring up bright cells doesn't tell us anything. You just jump to the completed products we see from a non-existent type of cell.