Cell Memories (Identity)

by dhw, Thursday, July 24, 2014, 19:09 (3774 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You don't seem to realize that your panentheism is a form of panpsychism.-DAVID: No, I fully understand that point and recognize the relationship. It is just that I am willing to accept that information runs biology rather automatically and you are not.-How automatic is “rather” automatically? And if it comes to that, what do you mean by information “running” biology? Some people argue that humans have no free will because they are run entirely by their biology. You disagree, because you argue that humans' mental capacity transcends biology. You even accept that other animals also have varying degrees of mental capacity. So why not accept the possibility that other organisms, from bacteria onwards, also have varying degrees of mental capacity and are not automata? You are not just “willing to accept” automatism - you insist on it and actively oppose the idea of cellular intelligence. It is this dogmatic rejection that I find so surprising.
 
DAVID: I see information in the genome running the show, guiding adaptive responses. That is the "intelligence" you see. Simple question. Is DNA a code? Doesn't a code impart information when deciphered? Don't you accept this?-So are you arguing that every manifestation of intelligence by humans and our fellow animals is the result of “information in the genome running the show”? Of course you aren't (see above). I accept that DNA is a code, but (see the post on "Junk DNA") researchers tell us that “mobile DNA can provide genetic novelties” which are non-random and purposeful. You insist that these novelties come into existence because each environmental change triggers an automatic rejigging of the genome, as if no cellular processing, communication, decision-making were required. If it's automatic, each change must have been preprogrammed, but in our discussion on fruit flies you say it's the ability to adapt and not the “life plan” that has been preprogrammed. That to me is tantamount to saying that your God has given cells and cell communities the intelligence to work out their own life plan. Once again, then, they are not automata. Either the life plan has been preprogrammed or the cell community works it out. You can't have it both ways.
 
dhw: Not being willing to take a blind leap of faith does not mean that “one insists on absolute proof”.-DAVID: How much proof do you need?-Enough to convince me. I am convinced that once there were dinosaurs, that our government's support for nuclear energy will lead to incalculable disaster, and that all forms of life have descended from earlier forms. I have no “absolute proof”, but I am able to believe. Neither the case for Chance nor the case for a God convinces me, which must seem as incomprehensible to Dawkins as to you.