Back to irreducible complexity (PART TWO) (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, February 10, 2010, 00:37 (5400 days ago) @ dhw

dhw,
For the first portion, I can safely say I have nothing to debate. 
> MATT: Even more probable (when considering a creator) is chance plus design. 
> 
> .... Your observation about music also raises our old question of where the ideas come from. One set of cells tells you your melody should go in this direction, and another set tells you it should go in another direction? And which set of cells makes the final choice? And what cells bring you the melody in the first place, and why, and how?
> -Part of the answer to this question comes from some experiments on morality talked about by one of the radiolab podcasts I've mentioned before. When asked to kill an innocent, the entire brain flashes (on scans) and the answer was always no. When the question was asked about say, doing the same thing to a criminal, etc., the results weren't as emphatic. What it appeared to show was that some brain cells say yes, and some say no... what was apparent on every scan was that the consensus of cells always won, whatever action the participant chose. This is why some theorists from computing fields are suggesting that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of cells; that who we are is the result of highly connected cells. -> MATT: ...since the creator still influences life, then that means that you are arguing that biochemical components are expressing attributes of consciousness.
> I would argue the exact opposite. If there is a creator, the biochemical components will be shifted around by HIS intelligence until they can function independently according to the programme HE has built (which allows for the vagaries of chance). If there is no creative intelligence, and the molecules do the work all by themselves, that's when they need to have their own form of consciousness. Then they alone supply codes which require extraordinary intelligence just to understand, let alone create.
> -Untangling a web of intelligences like this is hopeless. I hope it isn't like this!-> Continued in Part Two-[EDIT] I didn't finish my quick explanation on the issue of cellular quorums; in this explanation consciousness itself is still an immaterial thing; it has a physical cause but you cannot study consciousness itself by just studying the cells. I hope I'm not bungling this...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"