Innovation (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, May 07, 2013, 22:20 (4017 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw:We agreed long ago that evolution itself was not NECESSARY, so there is no point in using lack of necessity as an argument for the uniqueness of humans, -Not true. As long as organisms are evolving necessity for change is one of the parameters. It is not an issue of evolution as a necessary process, evolution appears to be a necessary assumption as having occurred. But if evolution is to be an ongoing process, organisms must respond to necessity. -
> dhw: A totally separate question, however, is how this mechanism came into being, which brings us to the other part of our correspondence on this thread:
> 
> dhw: [...] intelligent energy is the force within materials that enables organisms to innovate. Your God is first-cause energy which has been intelligent for ever and ever, so define him and it! The concept I'm proposing also implies structure, but instead of this being imposed from outside by a single inventor, it is created from within.
> 
> DAVID: Yes God is OUTside, but He created the INside to adapt all by itself. We don't need your concept, because it did not self-start. God started everything. Unless you'd like to imply that your concept began itself, somehow?
> 
> dhw: We need my concept of the "intelligent cell/genome/DNA" to explain how evolution proceeds. As for the "start", if we dispense with chance as an option, we have two scenarios to compare: 1) First-cause energy is your single entity that has been eternally intelligent (faith required);-Exactly correct. -> dhw: first-cause non-conscious energy formed and was within many entities (matter), in some of which the energy developed intelligence (faith required).-Not my faith! A very confusing scenario to me.-> dhw: 2) Your single intelligent entity manipulated matter from outside to create the universe and life; -Fine-> dhw: the many intelligent entities cooperated from within to create the universe and life.-How many Gods are there in your pantheon. -3) Your single entity sometimes allowed the "intelligent genome" to do its own thing, but also went on manipulating matter to create some species, especially humans (dabbling from outside)-Yes-> dhw: the many entities went on cooperating from within to create all species, including humans.-I think all you would get is a hodge podge. Evolution fits as a bush because of all the similarities of forms, both analagous and homologous.-> dhw: 4) Your single universal intelligence is hidden but has its own purposes-Right on!-> dhw: there is no single universal intelligence, but only individual intelligences which continue to cooperate.-Jumping off in every direction. Your proposal has no sense of coordination or similarity in organisms.
> 
> dhw: Each of these has a basic premise that requires faith (which is why I remain agnostic). The rest follows on quite logically.-It is your logic, not mine-> dhw: The first raises all kinds of questions about the nature and purpose of your single entity;-Yes it does, but we are here with the gift of life, and that is the purpose.-> dhw: the second is confined to the realities we know of (the universe and life). What would Ockham say?-That your proposial has no basis in what we are learning. As life, studied in organic chemistry, is shown to have increasing complexity that requires a strong consideration for design and planning. Occam would say that life is one phenomenon that requies complexity, not simplicity. He would conclude, as a priest, that a designer is necessary.