Panpsychism Makes a Comeback (General)

by David Turell , Tuesday, January 27, 2015, 00:44 (3587 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: I deliberately chose examples in which existing organisms might change their existing structures which in turn would lead further and further away from the original species. ... it is not unreasonable to speculate that the SAME mechanism is responsible when conditions allow for or demand even greater changes.-Still sounds to me you are stickling with Darwin's itty-bity theory. We have large jumps to explain: neurons, multicellularity, the Cambrian, the human brain. Minor variations and adaptations are certainly possible with an IM in organisms.
> 
> dhw: We are talking about an ongoing process whereby intelligent cell communities form an endless variety of combinations, with new generations building on the developments of their predecessors. That is how evolution has proceeded,-You don't really know that is how evolution works. We have agreed that life looks as though it evolved. Beyond that supposition is all we have. I like God-guided, and you don't.-> dhw: If you don't know how it works, how can you claim you know how it DOESN'T work?-Because specified complexity requires planning, and does not arise by chance. It takes an intellect.
> 
> dhw: Yet again, we don't know how ANY innovations happened, but they did, and if you believe in common descent, they must have taken place in existing organisms, from one generation to the next, though with the following proviso:
> 
> dhw: they can be improved on and varied by the intelligent mechanisms of succeeding generations. Does this sound too magical? 
> DAVID: Enormously magical. Mental sleight of hand.
> 
> dhw: As magical as a single eternal mind from nowhere that can encompass and create universes and manipulate the genome of a bacterium?-It is a better explanation than chance.
> 
> dhw: I accept the POSSIBILITY of your God's existence, I'm surprised that despite not knowing 'how' he could have done it, you feel able to dismiss the POSSIBILITY of his designing an autonomous inventive mechanism, instead of having to preprogramme every single innovation from the very beginning, or handle each one personally.-I do accept the possibility of an IM as long as it is viewed as semiautonomous. I'm as stubborn as you are.