philosophy of science: meaning and functions (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, September 11, 2018, 13:10 (2047 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

I have transferred the “pointy eggs” arguments to this thread, which is more appropriate.

DAVID: And the natural laws appeared by magic in the analysis by the Agnostic mind?
dhw: And a universal conscious mind appeared by magic in the analysis by the theist mind?
DAVID: One form of the magic must exist.
dhw: Yes indeed. That is the agnostic’s dilemma.

TONY: I find it far less difficult to believe in the concept of a singular entity that, whether gradually or spontaneously, developed sentience and then spent eons growing before expanding outwards far less difficult to believe in than an enormously complex and harmonious set of individual laws that interact with each other all spontaneously coming into existence with no precursor.

Your proposal has similarities to an alternative which I’ll discuss below. However, I’m reluctant to ignore the post you’re responding to, so I’ll repeat it as a point of reference (though Jesus’s “fullness” seems to have got lost).

dhw: I have offered a theistic purpose (God’s wish to relieve his own boredom by creating an ever changing spectacle) in the paragraph with which I have opened this post. I’d be surprised if you agreed with it, but if you don’t, it would be interesting to know why, and it would be interesting to know how your God’s hoped-for attainment of Jesus’s "fullness" explains the billions of solar systems and the billions of life forms and natural wonders extant and extinct.

TONY: 1: There is/was/will ever be, energy.
2: This energy, however it happened, became self-aware and grew in organization (lived)

This fits in with a form of panpsychism I’ve proposed as an alternative to a God and to chance: that the first cause is energy forever transforming itself into matter and, “however it happened” (the gap in all our hypotheses), becoming – not just being – aware. This awareness comes about through ever changing combinations of matter, i.e it is not the universal energy that becomes conscious, but the energy within the individual materials. It is these that “grew in organization”. No single conscious entity, but billions that have learned to cooperate in systems ranging from solar to bacterial (though all must eventually end).

TONY: 3: As the organization (self-awareness) grew, it realized that growth and organization (life/fullness/self-actualization) is a purpose in and of itself.
4: It grew in its own fullness.
5: It reached a point where it realized that it could not grow further in isolation (became aware of the possibility of reproduction)
6: It reproduced for the first time. (First direct creation)

This is too nebulous for me. What does growing in “fullness” mean? Full of what? Do you mean it’s learning, having new experiences, or feelings? Why “could not grow” as opposed to “did not want to”? If isolation makes it need more experiences, we are coming close to relief of boredom, aren’t we? Anyway, to end its isolation it invents the first life forms, which we agreed were single cells.

TONY: 7: It helped its spawn grow its awareness.

This appeals to me, in view of my hypothesis of cellular intelligence! If the first spawn were single cells, it gave them a degree of consciousness.

TONY: 8: It realized that, like it, its spawn would need to 'reproduce' to achieve fullness.
9: It realized that this process would have to continue infinitely, each new awareness growing and spreading.

I would describe this as evolution: cellular awareness spread, formed new combinations, and thus achieved the “fullness” of the higgledy-piggledy bush of life’s history as we know it. I'll rely on you to pinpoint differences, if any, between these hypotheses.

TONY: 10: Pondering the situation, it decided on a course of action that would accomplish both tasks, creating life/organization/self-awareness in a system that could continuously expand and grow infinitely(for all intents and purposes)
11: It worked through its offspring, allowing its offspring to grow along one trajectory, while it grew along another, possibly with the intent that at some point its offspring would start its own cycle while it continued to grow in new directions.

If there’s a single God, why couldn't he allow his creations to follow more than one “trajectory”? This is the basis of my theistic evolutionary hypothesis: your God invents the original mechanism, and allows organisms to use it autonomously – as opposed to preprogramming and/or dabbling (though the latter remains an option).

TONY: In this line of thinking, God is not only the progenitor, but also always at the head of the growth curve, always more advanced, always in the lead. The offspring, being aware of this, always follows the direction of its progenitor.

The single entity hypothesis is one possible progenitor, and multiple entities are another, as in the panpsychist hypothesis. But both can explain the above higgledy-piggledy bush, as you say “(life/fullness/self-actualization) is a purpose in and of itself”. Indeed it is the only purpose you have offered us here. Clearly, then, life as a purpose in and of itself - though humans have individual purposes - would apply to a godless world (= the chance and the panpsychist hypotheses), but you put the single conscious entity in charge, so with regard to purpose I’ll go back to my comment on points 3-6.