More "miscellany" (General)

by dhw, Wednesday, November 24, 2021, 08:59 (186 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: And you just can't believe pre-whales might have found more food in the water, and usage changed legs into flippers.

DAVID: You are back to Lamarck in the bold. I'll stay with my position: God speciates and provides for survival. God's purpose is to cerate organisms from Archaea to humans, and he did just that.

Your position is your God changes legs to flippers, thereby creating a new species. The change is designed to improve chances of survival, but apparently survival is NOT the purpose. God’s purpose is to design humans and their food (you forgot the food), and so changing legs to flippers, like every act of speciation and every natural wonder, is a step on the way to designing humans and their food, although the majority had nothing to do with humans and their food. And for good measure, flippers instead of legs are part of progress towards greater complexity (you forgot that too).

Genome complexity
DAVID: Extremely complex design without a designer? Really? His existence is highly reasonable.

dhw: Agreed. It is also highly reasonable to argue that the only consciousness we know of must have a source, so how can a being with a consciousness that is infinitely more powerful than our own simply exist without having a source?

DAVID: And what is the source of the universe that seems to have a beginning? No wonder Einstein fought against it!! It raises your question to requiring an answer.

The answer has to be that the “beginning” (the big bang, if it happened) was not the beginning, because nothing can come of nothing. And so instead of a sourceless conscious mind, we have a sourceless mass of matter and energy forever readjusting itself.

Keeping a cell organized
DAVID: […] So we see designed layers of controllers must exist to maintain order in our system of life homeostasis. Only a designing mind can create this.

dhw: I didn’t answer because my only answer is the same as ever: I accept the argument for design, as above, and I accept the argument for control. The latter will take us back to the same disagreement as below and a thousand times before:

DAVID: Which means you have to recognize the designed automaticity.

No it doesn’t. See below.

How T cells are triggered
DAVID: here is a marvelous example of how T cells act automatically to fight infections and cancer. […] The cells are not innately intelligent, but completely automatic. Cells act automatically, and following intelligent information (instructions) appear to BE intelligent, inferring they use an innate intelligence they do not have.

dhw: Your usual authoritative statement, based presumably on the belief that if you repeat the word “automatic” often enough, I will have to accept that cells act automatically, and are not – to use Shapiro’s terms – “cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully…and possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities.” 50/50 according to you, and that means 100% no!

DAVID: Shapiro, whose bacterial findings I accept fully, studied free-living bacteria, nothing beyond that in the process of evolution to more complexity. He theorized all of evolution might work that way. And you have swallowed that as probable fact since it helps you avoid God arranging for automaticity as He has done in His biological designs.

We're talking about cellular intelligence, and I’m sorry you think Shapiro would have formulated his theory without studying the work of other scientists in the field, and that you think they are as ignorant as you think he is. I haven’t swallowed the theory, but I consider it far more reasonable than your own. And yes, it helps me to avoid the illogicality of yours – as detailed ad nauseam – by removing a 3.8 billion-year-old programme for all undabbled innovations, lifestyles, econiches, natural wonders, problem solutions etc., and (theistic version) by substituting your God “arranging for” cells to possess an autonomous ability to do their own designing.

Reality: God is a mathematician
QUOTES: “Much of reality follows mathematical designs…”
"McDonnell’s view is more radical. She thinks reality is made of mathematical objects and minds. Mathematics is how the Universe, which is conscious, comes to know itself.”

Consciousness is not an object – it is a quality of minds. So why does she differentiate between mathematical objects and minds, and then say mathematics is how consciousness arises?

QUOTE: "I defend a different view: the world has two parts, mathematics and matter. Mathematics gives matter its form, and matter gives mathematics its substance.”

And where does consciousness come in?

DAVID: "Is God a Geometer" is a book published many years ago recognizing this approach. Our minds can see the inherent conceptual math which this article shows is a necessary part of reality. But this does not mean reality is psychic.

I would suggest that the world has many parts, and we can chuck in as many nouns as we like and they will all fit: I shall now, as usual, apply for a grant to investigate what part is played in the real world by matter, mathematics, information, consciousness, geography, geology, chemistry, biochemistry, physics, biology, panpsychism, the human imagination and bubblegum. I hope I can rely on your support.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum