Paul Davies: new comments on Information and life (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, March 13, 2020, 18:02 (1717 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: (dhw’s bolds): "Throughout the book, Davies marvels at the stunning complexity of life, especially at the cellular and molecular levels. He wonders at the existence of molecular machines like motors, pumps, tubes, shears, and rotors — paraphernalia familiar to human engineers — and their ability to manipulate information in clear and super-efficient ways, in Davies’s words “conjuring order out of chaos.” In fact, he calls the cell “a vast web of information management,” …

"Logic, of course, is a product of mental activity So is Davies implying an active intelligence working at the cellular and molecular level? It appears so even if he would never admit it.

"To explain all this, Davies can do no better than to speculate that somehow new laws and principles emerge from information processing systems of sufficiently great complexity. But he entirely ignores the question of the origin of the information processing system itself, which he has already pronounced as beyond the ability of chemistry alone to explain.
“If abstract information is truly at the root of life, then intelligence has to be factored into the equation. Davies has made a compelling case for the former, so by extension — and much to his chagrin — he seems to be making a compelling case for the latter.

DAVID: : you know I like Davies' thinking. this shows you why. And it reminds me as to why you are always so uncomfortable with the concept of information as the absolute underpinning of the processes of life. Note my bold. I cannot think of a better comment on the need for a thinking mind as the source of the miracle of life. If molecules act as if they are thinking, the underlying process must be exquisitely designed.

I am not going to reopen the discussion on information. We have already agreed in two previous discussions that information is passive and non-creative. It requires intelligent processing to produce anything. Now please note my bolds. It could hardly be clearer that Davies is espousing the theory of cellular intelligence. Clearly the author realizes this, and wants to take it one step further. The “information processing system” is the intelligent cell, and he wants to know the origin of the intelligent cell. If Davies doesn’t wish to tackle the problem of the origin, so be it. That is not his concern. I am more than happy to say that the origin of the mechanism may be your God. Complexity of design for me is a good reason not to espouse atheism, and even to espouse theism. There are plenty of other good reasons why I cannot espouse theism either. Maybe Davies is in the same position.