Review of Spetner's book (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, November 26, 2014, 13:15 (3432 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: “Consciousness” is a misleading word, as it can imply self-awareness of the human type. Scientists like Margulis, Shapiro, McClintock and Albrecht-Buehler have shown repeatedly that cells have their own kind of “intelligence”.
DAVID: You are conflating cellular sentience and whole organ (brain) consciousness. That argument won't work for me, because its apples and oranges all over again. Cells work at a molecular level. Their molecular reactions to stimuli and stress are shown over and over again in the literature and carefully explained. Once again you have overinflated M, S, McC, and A-B. I suggest you read their work directly not the interpretations thereof.-We have agreed that the “brain” of the cell is in the genome. I have stressed that we should not equate cellular intelligence with human consciousness. Of course cells work at molecular level, but we do not know what other levels their IM may be capable of working at. (“Wagner describes controlling networks of genes, but has no idea how they accomplish their tasks of creating an animal. No one does. We are at a very early stage of knowledge.” David Turell, 25 November at 00.19). I have supplied several direct quotes from these scientists to the effect that cells are sentient, cognitive, intelligent beings, and have used these scientific observations to construct the hypothesis that their “brains” cooperate inventively to drive evolution. I'd be surprised if it's an original idea, but if it is, good for me. I still consider it to be a more convincing hypothesis than random mutations and a 3.7-billion-year computer programme that passes on route maps for golden plovers. -DAVID: ...my hypothesis is that basic patterns of body forms, chemical reactions, and certain life styles are set in the origin of life and modified by a semi-autonomous IM as evolution progressed.-My hypothesis is that the inventive mechanism (cellular “brain”) was present in the first life forms - is that what you mean by “set in the origin of life”? We don't know how it or they originated, but God is a possible source. It continued to create and modify body forms, chemical reactions and life styles as environments changed throughout evolution. Either it did so autonomously, or it automatically implemented a few billion programmes your God planted in the very first cells, or God dabbled. “Semi-autonomous” seems to me like another piece of linguistic fudge. -DAVID: ... you want the word 'autonomous' to be carefully chosen as describing the IM, because that approach reduces the perceived power of God, and suggests He might not be there at all, despite your bow to a 'theistic hat' wearing thesis. -‘Autonomous' need not reduce the power of God. It simply changes your view of God's purpose. Instead of setting out to create humans, he created life to see where the inventive mechanism would take it. He may even have dabbled as new ideas came to him. You are locked into anthropocentrism, and you close your mind to alternative scenarios (even theistic ones) because you cannot bear the thought that your God might not have planned everything in advance.