Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought (Endings)

by David Turell , Friday, June 05, 2020, 19:48 (1420 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Of course multicellular communities are more complex than single cells, and of course the bold suggests a definite mental process. That is the basis of the whole theory! And of course the process took millions of years. That is history. Why is cellular intelligence (possibly created by your God) more of a fairy tale than your God preprogramming or dabbling every new complexity in the history of life?

DAVID: The usual non-answer to the degree of complexity that must be explained by the design of automatic intelligent cellular responses. Invoking a god you do not believe in doesn't help your lonely theory. How do you explain the origin of enzymes? Chance?

dhw: Cellular intelligence is not my lonely theory. Why do you continue to pretend that Margulis, McClintock, Buehler, Shapiro and Co. never existed? Why do you continue to conflate the theory of cellular intelligence with the unanswered question of origins? We don’t know the origin of consciousness, so does that mean consciousness does not exist? Why are you so terrified of the idea that your God might not have dabbled or programmed every single life form, econiche, strategy, natural wonder in the history of life? Just tell us why a God-made cellular intelligence is more of a fairy tale than God preprogramming or dabbling every new complexity in life?

You always ignore is that cellular intelligence is only an appearance from the outside of cells. When we go inside all we see is automatic molecular activity at very, very high speed, all the reactions highly coordinated. Always looks very intelligently organized and designed to me.

DAVID: Only a designing mind explains the complexity. Your only choice is chance or design.

dhw: You’ve left out the atheistic panpsychist option (bottom-up intelligence). Many educated chemists and physicists and biologists would claim that your choice is “sheer lunacy” (an expression on an extremist par with terms like “The God Delusion”). I don’t agree with any of you. I recognize the pros and cons of each option, and as none of you can possibly know the truth, I would plead for tolerance, moderate language, and respect.

dhw: You are very good at attacking the faiths you do not accept, but for some reason you remain blind to the problems with your own. However, I'd prefer not to attack your faith, or that of your adversaries. To each his own. I am simply explaining why I can't share it.

DAVID: I know that, but cannot understand the choice.

dhw: That puts you exactly on a par with the atheists.

Yes, they don't understand your agnosticism, you should be atheistic.