Information as the source of life; Davies current opinion (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, October 03, 2020, 11:58 (1511 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: This process must be high-level. The immune system as a whole must work out what will meet the new challenge. That cannot be done at the molecular level. The demons do not themselves know what they are doing.

dhw: The molecular system sometimes fails to obey the instructions of the decision-making compartment of the cell/cell community.

DAVID: The bold is strongly suggestive of automaticity in following instructional information.

That is what I have just said. And I propose that the instructions come from the decision-making compartment of the cell/cell community.

QUOTE: I, for one, find a universe that naturally gives rise to purposive and creative organisms more plausible, and more reassuring, than one that is completely purposeless.

dhw: Ambiguous. What does he mean by “naturally”? The organisms (not just humans) are purposive and creative. It’s only if you think there is a God who designed them that you can talk of “teleology”, i.e. a purpose behind the existence of purposive, creative organisms. What does reassurance have to do with it?

DAVID: He always sneaks up toward God.

I guessed that. Seeking reassurance is no basis for a theory. Hence all this muddled thinking about purpose.

dhw: And we have devised countless purposes for ourselves, independently of the purpose of our genes and molecules (which enable us to live and reproduce until we die). But it requires just as great a leap of faith to believe in a sourceless supreme intelligence that simply exists and designs as the leap of faith that the source of our existence and intelligence is “blind chance”.

DAVID: Blind chance cannot design the intricacies of living organisms. Logic dictates a designer!!!

An excellent argument for design, which explains your own leap of faith. But this whole article deals with teleology – and the quote below sums up its lack of coherence.

QUOTE: We would then also have to live with an incoherent view of ourselves. We cannot, at one and the same time, deny that we have purpose and also write an article like this one […] Articles and books are necessarily written by purposive agents, not by random typewriting machines.

dhw: We make our own purposes! The author’s purpose was to write an article proclaiming that we have purpose. That does not mean that there is a universal purpose for his existence!

DAVID: Your same blinkered view. There is no logical way around the existence of a designer. And you have honestly admitted the evidence for design will not allow you to be an atheist. That same evidence has made me a theist. There is no other issue but design from which to make as decision!!! Things are obviously designed or they are not. That is why Talbott and Davies tiptoe in their commentaries. Both as obviously agnostic. You are keeping good company. I appreciate how you worked producing such clear commentary of a very important entry.

Thank you for your appreciation. I return it: on this forum and in your two brilliant books, you have made the strongest possible case for design. But this article faffs around with the subject of PURPOSE, and in my view is so muddled that it defeats its OWN purpose! I have tried to explain why, and your last comment suggests that you agree.