More Denton: A new book (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, March 14, 2016, 13:28 (2967 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I don't know why you keep bringing Darwin and/or Nagel into the discussion.
DAVID: Because Nagel's book is a reason to recognize that any theory of evolution, to be complete, must include an explanation for consciousness, and none does so far. -There is as yet no theory of any kind that can explain consciousness, but that does not invalidate the theory of evolution, which claims that all organisms apart from the very first have descended from earlier organisms. (You and I have accepted this.) We are all perfectly aware that there is no “complete” theory about the origin of the first cells, the origin of consciousness, or how evolution works. How can there be a “complete” theory when we don't have all the facts? These are the subjects we've been discussing for the last eight years, so you really don't need to keep on sniping at Darwin or propping yourself up on Nagel!-dhw: We know that nobody can explain consciousness (even Dawkins acknowledges that it is a mystery). If one explanation for the existence of consciousness is an unknown form of consciousness that has existed throughout eternity, we might just as well argue that consciousness can be explained by an unknown combination of energy and matter which occurred at an unknown moment during eternity.
DAVID: I cannot believe that consciousness can simply arrive creating itself on its own from pre-existing eternal energy, which must precede the Big Bang.-I share your incredulity. I also cannot believe that pre-existing eternal energy can simply “be” conscious, and can simply “have” all the knowledge required to create a universe and life. But you do not share my incredulity.-dhw: The confusion is entirely your own. I don't know how often I have said that I can accept eternal energy and matter as a first cause. ....I am an agnostic. As for my theory about intelligent organisms, it relates to how evolution works. The source of that intelligence remains unknown, but might be your God.-DAVID: Stuck on the fence, but thank you for admitting my side of the discussion is possible. I still see first cause as pure energy. God does not have a material body.-I have always admitted that your side of the discussion is possible, though some of the details seem less likely to me than others. This is AgnosticWeb, not AtheistWeb.