What makes life vital (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, March 03, 2015, 20:09 (3552 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The problem is not our language, it is our worldview[/i]." You take the same reductionist view of organisms other than humans, though you agree that certain “higher” forms of organism have a degree of consciousness. That is the sticking point between you and me and all the scientists whose findings you disagree with. -Yes I take a reductionist viewpoint here. I claim that one can follow the biochemistry of receiving stimuli and one can follow the biochemistry of the bacterial reactions. What is not seen is the action of the information in the genome controlling this dance of molecules. Is that information in the form of mentation, as you and your Darwin scientists imply or is it implanted and automatic? This is the major difference between the ID view of biology and the Darwin view. Darwinists avoid the issue like the plague. I follow the ID articles and have accepted their view. This is a major reason I am I believer.-> 
> dhw: Perhaps what I wrote was not clear. In my view these terms are NOT metaphors. There is absolutely no need for scientists to describe bacteria as conscious, sentient etc. if that is not what they mean.-Yes there is as I have explained above. To avoid the issue of where did the information in the genome codes come from. If your favorite scientists ignore the issue of information, they protect Darwinism from a huge problem, the origin of the information.-> 
> DAVID: Material processes can't create the information that guides life. Mentation does. Do you realize your pan-psychism theory feeds off of that statement? My case is rested for now.
> 
> dhw: Yes, my panpsychism hypothesis entails mental activity in all things. It is a kind of third way which I certainly find believable when applied to living organisms, but considerably less believable in relation to inorganic materials.
> 
> dhw: To sum up, the disagreement between us lies in your dogmatism over the possible intelligence, consciousness, sentience etc. of all living organisms, and not over the automatism of bodily functions. It is this intelligence, on which so many scientists insist, that lies at the heart of my hypothesis concerning an inventive mechanism of unknown origin that enables organisms themselves to drive evolution forward - as opposed to random mutations, and divine preprogramming or dabbling.-You have neatly skipped my question. Where does the information come from that Darwin scientists call mentation, using the words intelligence, sentience, consciousness? One cannot tell from the outside of a bacterium whether it acts intelligently or whether it is run by intelligent information given to it. That is our difference. Only those two possibilities exist. I view my kidney cells automaticity equal to the bacterial cell's automaticity. We multicellular types come from single cells in evolution. What changed the single cell in the transition? The multiple cells took on different cooperative functions, no more than that, and represent a shift in the content of the managing information for different cells. This is my different view of evolution from yours. I've told you your Darwin background is getting in the way of your seeing this, and note you are quoting scientists who are Darwin loyal. I'm following equally competent scientists from the other side of the argument. Again, only two equally possible mechanisms.