***

"It is first important to explain what Gödel meant by an ‘essential’ property. We have, of course, many properties. I have the property, for example, of standing in a relationship of self-identity (I am not you), of being a US citizen, and of enjoying the horror genre. Although there is no unanimity on exactly how to understand Gödel’s use of ‘essential’, his ontological proof for the existence of God includes a definition of what he means by an essential property. According to that definition, a property is essential of something if it stands in necessary connection with the rest of its properties such that, if one possesses said property, then one necessarily possesses all its other properties. It follows that every individual has an individuated essence, or as Gödel notes in the handwritten draft of the proof: ‘any two essences of x are nec. [sic] equivalent.’ Gödel, like Leibniz, believed that each individual possessed a uniquely determinable essence.

***

"He thought all human beings are destined for an afterlife because they all share a property in virtue of their being human. There are sets of necessary properties that hang together and that are interrelated across individuals such that the possession of this set would entail something being the kind of thing it is. In his ontological proof, for example, he defines a ‘God-like’ being as one that must possess every positive property. As for human beings, I am a human being in virtue of possessing a kind-specific set of properties that all human beings possess necessarily and that at least some of which are completely unique to us (just as only a God-like being can have the property of possessing every positive property). (my bolds)

***

"So what essentially human property points towards a destiny beyond this world? Gödel’s answer: the human ability to learn, and specifically the ability to learn from our mistakes in a way that gives life more meaning. For Gödel, this property hangs necessarily together with the property of being rational. While he admits that animals and plants can learn through trial and error to discover better means for achieving an end, there is a qualitative difference between animals and human beings for whom learning can elevate one into a higher plane of meaning. This is the heart of Gödel’s rationale for ascribing immortality to human beings. In the 14 August 1961 letter, Gödel writes:

"Only the human being can come into a better existence through learning, that is, give his life more meaning. One, and often the only, method to learn arises from doing something false the first time. And that occurs of course in this world truly in abundant quantity.

***

"An intriguing feature of Gödel’s theological worldview is his belief that our growth into fully rational beings occurs not as new incarnations in this world, but rather in a distinct future world:

"In particular, one must imagine that the ‘learning’ occurs in great part first in the next world, namely, in that we remember our experiences from this world and come to understand them really for the first time, so that our this-worldly experiences are – so to speak – only the raw material for learning.

"And he elaborates further:

"Moreover one must of course assume that our understanding there will be substantially better than here, so that we can recognise everything of importance with the same infallible certainty as 2 x 2 = 4, where deception is objectively impossible.

"The next world, therefore, must be one that liberates us from our current, earthly limitations. Rather than recycling back into another earthly body, we must become beings with the capacity to learn from memories that are latently brought along into our future, higher state of being.

***

"Indeed, he arrived at his position through reasoning alone, and thinks that his convictions will eventually be shown to be ‘thoroughly compatible with all known facts’. It is in this context that he further presents a defence of religion, recognising a rational core to it, which he claims is often maligned by philosophers and undermined by bad religious institutions:

"N.B. the current philosophy curriculum doesn’t help much in understanding such questions since 90 per cent of contemporary philosophers see their primary objective as knocking religion out of people’s heads, and thereby work the same as bad churches."

Comment: a valuable essay about one of the greatest thinkers of the last century. Obviously very religious. Note he views God as possessing every positive property. I doubt he would recognize dhw's forms of God. His thinking involves a recognition of human exceptionalism as demanding a further completeness in a future existence.

https://aeon.co/essays/kurt-godel-his-mother-and-the-argument-for-life-after-death?utm_...

"His rationale for belief in an afterlife is this:

"If the world is rationally organised and has meaning, then it must be the case. For what sort of a meaning would it have to bring about a being (the human being) with such a wide field of possibilities for personal development and relationships to others, only then to let him achieve not even 1/1,000th of it?

"He deepens the rhetorical question at the end with the metaphor of someone who lays the foundation for a house only to walk away from the project and let it waste away. Gödel thinks such waste is impossible since the world, he insists, gives us good reason to consider it to be shot through with order and meaning. Hence, a human being who can achieve only partial fulfilment in a lifetime must seek rational validation for this deficiency in a future world, one in which our potential manifests.

"Before moving on, it is good to pause and capture Gödel’s argument in a nutshell. Assuming that the world is rationally organised, human life – as embedded in the world – ought to possess the same rational structure. We have grounds for assuming that the world is rationally organised. Yet human life is irrationally structured. It is constituted by a great potential but it never fully expresses this potential in a lifetime. Hence, each of us must realise our full potential in a future world. Reason demands it.

***

"As he neatly summarises in the fourth letter to his mother:

"What I name a theological Weltanschauung is the view that the world and everything in it has meaning and reason, and indeed a good and indubitable meaning. From this it follows immediately that our earthly existence – since it as such has at most a very doubtful meaning – can be a means to an end for another existence.

"Precisely in virtue of the fact that our lives consist in unfulfilled or spoiled potential makes him confident that this lifetime is but a staging ground for things to come. But, again, that is only if the world is rationally structured.

***

"The reasons that he gives to his mother in the letters display his rationalist proclivities and belief that natural science presupposes that intelligibility is fundamental to reality. As he writes in his letter dated 23 July 1961:

"Does one have a reason to assume that the world is rationally organised? I think so. For it is absolutely not chaotic and arbitrary, rather – as natural science demonstrates – there reigns in everything the greatest regularity and order. Order is, indeed, a form of rationality.

***

"When seeking meaning, we find that the world is legible to us. And when paying attention, we find patterns of regularity that allow us to predict the future. For Gödel, reason was evident in the world because this order is discoverable.

***

"Gödel believed the world’s deep, rational structure and the soul’s postmortem existence depend on the falsity of materialism, the philosophical view that all truth is necessarily determined by physical facts. In an unpublished paper from around 1961, Gödel asserts that ‘materialism is inclined to regard the world as an unordered and therefore meaningless heap of atoms.’

***

"Despite living in a materialist age, Gödel was convinced that materialism was false, and thought further that his incompleteness theorems showed it to be highly unlikely.

"The incompleteness theorems proved (in broad strokes) that, for any consistent formal system (for example, mathematical and logical), there will be truths that cannot be demonstrated within the system by its own axioms and rules of inference. Hence any consistent system will inevitably be incomplete.

***

"Gödel showed that no formal mathematical system could ever do so or prove definitively by its own standards that it was free of contradiction. And insights discovered about these systems – for instance, that certain problems are truly non-demonstrable within them – are evident to us through reasoning. From this, Gödel concluded that the human mind transcends any finite formal system of axioms and rules of inference.

***

"Gödel thought the theorem’s results dealt a heavy blow to the materialistic worldview. If the mind is irreducible to the physical parts of the brain, and mathematics reveals a rationally accessible structure beyond physical phenomena, then an alternative worldview should be sought that is more rationalistic and open to truths that cannot be tested by the senses. Such a perspective could endorse a rationally organised world and be open to the possibility of life after death.

***

"Gödel thought the theorem’s results dealt a heavy blow to the materialistic worldview. If the mind is irreducible to the physical parts of the brain, and mathematics reveals a rationally accessible structure beyond physical phenomena, then an alternative worldview should be sought that is more rationalistic and open to truths that cannot be tested by the senses. Such a perspective could endorse a rationally organised world and be open to the possibility of life after death.

Continued

https://www.sciencealert.com/were-getting-closer-to-understanding-why-our-moment-of-dea...

"...a lot about NDEs remains a mystery, in part, because it's practically impossible to study in real-time, said Dr. Bruce Greyson, a professor of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences at the University of Virginia and co-founder of the International Association of Near-Death Studies.

"Researchers must rely on anecdotes, memory recall, and in some cases, animal studies to understand how brains change from a NDE and what it could mean for future medicine.

***

"Seeing loved ones – deceased or living – is common among NDEs, as is seeing a bright light at the end of a tunnel.

"Other people have reported more corporeal sensations like that of leaving their body, floating above it, feeling physically drawn into that tunnel with the light at the end of it, or having a spiritual encounter with a supreme being, aliens, or lost loved ones.

"And all the while, during these other-worldly experiences, people rarely report having felt fear or pain – it's usually an overwhelming sense of calm and love.

"Some of these phenomena can't be explained by science – at least not yet. But in 2022 the NDE research community received something it had never witnessed before: the brain scan of a dying man.

"And it unveiled some secrets that, up to that point, scientists could only speculate.

***

"In 2016, a then-87-year-old man was connected to an electroencephalogram, or EEG, when he unexpectedly had a heart attack and died. Researchers later published the results in Frontiers of Aging Neuroscience.

"An EEG measures electrical signals that the brain produces in order to help diagnose or examine certain neurological conditions like seizures and memory loss.

Sure enough, doctors were monitoring the man for a series of recent seizures when his heart suddenly stopped beating.

"In the paper, researchers reported that during the 15 seconds leading up to the man's heart attack, the EEG scan revealed high-frequency brainwaves called gamma oscillations, which are thought to play a role in creating and retrieving memories.

"'It is very hard to make claims with one case… but what we can claim is that we have signals just before death and just after the heart stops like those that happen in the healthy human when they dream or memorize or meditate," lead study author Dr. Ajmal Zemmar told Insider's Anna Medaris.

"Of course, these scans are of a man seconds before death and not exactly equivalent to an NDE, where the person survives. However, such activity may help explain why people see memory flashbacks or faces of people they know during an NDE, Greyson said.

"Moreover, EEG scans of people attempting to remember their NDE also provide more clues to what an NDE does to the human brain.

"When people recall an NDE, the brain "shows increased activity in many different parts," Greyson said, "such as those associated with memory, vision, hearing, and emotion."

"In particular, the temporal lobe, which is responsible for helping process sound and encode memories, is thought to be associated with out-of-body experiences and memory flashbacks during NDEs, said Dr. David San Filippo, an associate professor at National Louis University and a near-death experience researcher.

"'That has led some people to believe that near-death experiences are simply biological, chemical reactions to the brain dying," San Filippo said.

***

"To that point, a study in rats suggested that the overwhelmingly positive experience people report with NDEs may be linked to a flood of serotonin the brain releases. This may be the brain's way of gradually preparing the body for death by inducing feelings of euphoria and pain relief, San Filippo said.

***

"Across different age groups and among people in different countries, reports of NDEs are strikingly similar, especially in regards to encountering a spiritual deity or feeling part of something bigger than life on earth, San Filippo said.

"'We hear the same story. It might differ based on cultural or spiritual beliefs, but it is essentially the same," San Filippo said. "That leads us to believe that a near-death experience is a transpersonal experience happening outside of the brain." (my bold)

***

"San Filippo said that people in his studies who have had an NDE and recall feeling calm and comforted during the experience report that they no longer fear death.

"'If we can learn more about what causes a positive near-death experience that is comfortable and peaceful, we could possibly develop a powerful therapy for people who are in turmoil or struggling," Rasouli said."

Comment: NDE's are common and soften and remove fear of death. Note my bold. San Fillippo has joined past researchers who wonder about consciousness being separate from the brain, while at the same time studying the chemical and electrical changes in a materialism approach which is looking at how the brain responds during NDE's.

DAVID: i remind that cell choices may be according to guiding instructions they contain.

dhw: If cells do not have the option to make their own choices but can only follow instructions, the materialist would have to reject the concept of free will.

DAVID: Many materialists reject free will anyway. How do they explain the complexification process in which neurons set up new networks and adjust synapse controls to accommodate differing thought patterns driven by the soul? They don't accept the soul, but at least know the person drives the brain.

dhw: If I were a materialist, I would say that the decisions made by the person who drives the brain are dictated by causes beyond his control, including the make-up of the cells that form his brain. (NB I am neither a materialist nor a dualist!)

dhw: The subject under discussion is not the origin of cellular intelligence but WHETHER cells are intelligent or not.[…]

DAVID: Your 'or not' never answers where innate cell intelligence came from. You give a nod to God a a supplier, and the rest is always nebulous.

dhw Either God, a chance combination of materials, or a form of panpsychism (= countless innate intelligences as opposed to the one intelligence you call God).

dhw: All three “first causes” require blinkered faith if anyone is to believe in them.

DAVID: But one is the true first cause.

dhw: But nobody knows which it is. Hence the need for blinkered faith.

DAVID: Yes and one is allowed to make a logical choice.

Of course. And both atheist and theist will claim that their choice is logical.

DAVID: [...] The atheist approach is no approach at all, just hollow words.

dhw: Agreed. It is on a par with the explanation that the origin of life is an unknown, unknowable, hidden, immaterial being without a source who knows everything and can do anything and whom we can call God or Allah or Jehovah or anything we like.

DAVID: And the miracle of life is totally unexplained by 70 years of scientific effort. A designer is obviously required.

dhw: You keep repeating your belief, and I keep repeating the atheist belief (that chance created life). You keep repeating your objections to their belief, and I keep repeating their objections to your belief. I suggest we end this discussion!

Agreed.

dhw: If cells do not have the option to make their own choices but can only follow instructions, the materialist would have to reject the concept of free will.

DAVID: Many mterialists reject free will anyway. How do they explain the complexification process in which neurons set up new networks and adjust synapse controls to accommodate differing thought patterns driven by the soul? They don't accept the soul, but at least know the person drives the brain.

If I were a materialist, I would say that the decisions made by the person who drives the brain are dictated by causes beyond his control, including the make-up of the cells that form his brain. (NB I am neither a materialist nor a dualist!)

dhw: The subject under discussion is not the origin of cellular intelligence but WHETHER cells are intelligent or not.[…]

DAVID: Your 'or not' never answers where innate cell intelligence came from. You give a nod to God a a supplier, and the rest is always nebulous.

Either God, a chance combination of materials, or a form of panpsychism (= countless innate intelligences as opposed to the one intelligence you call God).

dhw: All three “first causes” require blinkered faith if anyone is to believe in them.

DAVID: But one is the true first cause.

dhw: But nobody knows which it is. Hence the need for blinkered faith.

DAVID: Yes and one is allowed to make a logical choice.

Of course. And both atheist and theist will claim that their choice is logical.

DAVID: [...] The atheist approach is no approach at all, just hollow words.

dhw: Agreed. It is on a par with the explanation that the origin of life is an unknown, unknowable, hidden, immaterial being without a source who knows everything and can do anything and whom we can call God or Allah or Jehovah or anything we like.

DAVID: And the miracle of life is totally unexplained by 70 years of scientific effort. A designer is obviously required.

You keep repeating your belief, and I keep repeating the atheist belief (that chance created life). You keep repeating your objections to their belief, and I keep repeating their objections to your belief. I suggest we end this discussion!

DAVID: i remind that cell choices may be according to guiding instructions they contain.

dhw: If cells do not have the option to make their own choices but can only follow instructions, the materialist would have to reject the concept of free will.

Many mterialists reject free will anyway. How do they explain the complexification process in which neurons set up new networks and adjust synapse controls to accommodate differing thought patterns driven by the soul? They don't accept the soul, but at least know the person drives the brain.

dhw: Unfortunately, our fundamental difference is the NATURE of intelligent activity. You insist that each activity has been programmed or dabbled by your God, and the cells are automatons obeying his instructions, whereas I propose that cellular intelligence is autonomous.

DAVID: But you have no explanation for the origin of cellular intelligence.

dhw: I have always allowed for God as the designer. The subject under discussion is not the origin of cellular intelligence but WHETHER cells are intelligent or not.

DAVID: Or designed to react intelligently following guideline instructions

dhw: Yes, that is the “or not” part of my sentence. Let us remember that your “guideline instructions” = a divine 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every intelligent reaction, or a direct divine dabble.

Your 'or not' never answers where innate cell intelligence came from. You give a nod to God a a supplier, and the rest is always nebulous.

dhw: All three “first causes” require blinkered faith if anyone is to believe in them.

DAVID: But one is the true first cause.

dhw: But nobody knows which it is. Hence the need for blinkered faith.

Yes and one is allowed to make a logical choice.

dhw: You missed the point. The article confirms what I told you would be the atheist approach.

DAVID: No I didn't. I simply objected to the assumptions in the quote, asking how do you get from here to there? Neither meteorite nor endogenous formation explains any of the process that made live life. The atheist approach is no approach at all, just hollow words.

dhw: Agreed. It is on a par with the explanation that the origin of life is an unknown, unknowable, hidden, immaterial being without a source who knows everything and can do anything and whom we can call God or Allah or Jehovah or anything we like.

And the miracle of life is totally unexplained by 70 years of scientific effort. A designer is obviously required

dhw: I found his purely materialistic view generally difficult to reconcile with the concept of free will, but the above quote clearly proposes that cell communities make their own choices (one up for cellular intelligence), and if we were to expand that proposal to the thinking part of the materialist’s brain, then clearly we can argue that our own personal thinking cells make our choices our own!

DAVID: i remind that cell choices may be according to guiding instructions they contain.

If cells do not have the option to make their own choices but can only follow instructions, the materialist would have to reject the concept of free will.

dhw: Unfortunately, our fundamental difference is the NATURE of intelligent activity. You insist that each activity has been programmed or dabbled by your God, and the cells are automatons obeying his instructions, whereas I propose that cellular intelligence is autonomous.

DAVID: But you have no explanation for the origin of cellular intelligence.

dhw: I have always allowed for God as the designer. The subject under discussion is not the origin of cellular intelligence but WHETHER cells are intelligent or not.

DAVID: Or designed to react intelligently follwing guideline instructions

Yes, that is the “or not” part of my sentence. Let us remember that your “guideline instructions” = a divine 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every intelligent reaction, or a direct divine dabble.

dhw: All three “first causes” require blinkered faith if anyone is to believe in them.

DAVID: But one is the true first cause.

But nobody knows which it is. Hence the need for blinkered faith.

dhw: You missed the point. The article confirms what I told you would be the atheist approach.

DAVID: No I didn't. I simply objected to the assumptions in the quote, asking how do you get from here to there? Neither meteorite nor endogenous formation explains any of the process that made live life. The atheist approach is no approach at all, just hollow words.

Agreed. It is on a par with the explanation that the origin of life is an unknown, unknowable, hidden, immaterial being without a source who knows everything and can do anything and whom we can call God or Allah or Jehovah or anything we like.

Under "A PHYSICIST BELIEVES IN FREE WILL":
QUOTE: "As explained by Denis Noble and Raymond Noble in their paper for the journal Chaos in 2018, molecular randomness gives cellular mechanisms the option of choosing the outcomes they want, and discarding those they don’t."

DAVID: this is a purely materialistic view of brain function, but it certainly allows for free will. Enormous article filled with explanations worth studying.

Thank you for the article and for editing it. I found his purely materialistic view generally difficult to reconcile with the concept of free will, but the above quote clearly proposes that cell communities make their own choices (one up for cellular intelligence), and if we were to expand that proposal to the thinking part of the materialist’s brain, then clearly we can argue that our own personal thinking cells make our choices our own!

i remind that cell choices may be according to guiding instructions they contain.

XXXXXX
DAVID: Our only difference then is the source of intelligent activity by cells. I have God as the source, and you don't know of a source, but God is possible.

dhw: Unfortunately, our fundamental difference is the NATURE of intelligent activity. You insist that each activity has been programmed or dabbled by your God, and the cells are automatons obeying his instructions, whereas I propose that cellular intelligence is autonomous.

DAVID: But you have no explanation for the origin of cellular intelligence.

dhw: I have always allowed for God as the designer. The subject under discussion is not the origin of cellular intelligence but WHETHER cells are intelligent or not.

Or designed to react intelligently follwing guideline instructions

DAVID: It is easy to see intelligence in the purposeful activity of cells, since they are designed that way by their designer, who also is first cause.

dhw: Yes, their purposeful, autonomous intelligence could have been designed by a designer. And an atheist can say that their purposeful, autonomous intelligence, like life itself***, was the result of a lucky combination of mindless energy and matter, which is also first cause.

DAVID: And I go back to in basic form of plasma the charged ions combine in no particular direction unless under a specific force, which appeared because of what?

dhw: And I go back to the basic question of a universal conscious mind which appeared because of what? We are going round in circles! All three “first causes” require blinkered faith if anyone is to believe in them.

But one is the true first cause.

dhw: ***Under "theoretical origin of life": "There are two explanations for the origins of life's building molecules: extraterrestrial delivery, such as via meteorites, and endogenous formation. The presence of amino acids and other biomolecules in meteorites points to the former.”
See what I mean?

DAVID: We know that some amino acids arrived by meteorites. That is old news. Tells us nothing about how the necessary 20 amino acids, all left-handed appeared and were combined by some process to make active living biochemistry.

You missed the point. The article confirms what I told you would be the atheist approach.

No I didn't. I simply objected to the assumptions in the quote, asking how do you get from here to there? Neither meteorite nor endogenous formation explains any of the process that made live life. The atheist approach is no approach at all, just hollow words.

DAVID: this is a purely materialistic view of brain function, but it certainly allows for free will. Enormous article filled with explanations worth studying.

Thank you for the article and for editing it. I found his purely materialistic view generally difficult to reconcile with the concept of free will, but the above quote clearly proposes that cell communities make their own choices (one up for cellular intelligence), and if we were to expand that proposal to the thinking part of the materialist’s brain, then clearly we can argue that our own personal thinking cells make our choices our own!
XXXXXX
DAVID: Our only difference then is the source of intelligent activity by cells. I have God as the source, and you don't know of a source, but God is possible.

dhw: Unfortunately, our fundamental difference is the NATURE of intelligent activity. You insist that each activity has been programmed or dabbled by your God, and the cells are automatons obeying his instructions, whereas I propose that cellular intelligence is autonomous.

DAVID: But you have no explanation for the origin of cellular intelligence.

I have always allowed for God as the designer. The subject under discussion is not the origin of cellular intelligence but WHETHER cells are intelligent or not.

DAVID: It is easy to see intelligence in the purposeful activity of cells, since they are designed that way by their designer, who also is first cause.

dhw: Yes, their purposeful, autonomous intelligence could have been designed by a designer. And an atheist can say that their purposeful, autonomous intelligence, like life itself***, was the result of a lucky combination of mindless energy and matter, which is also first cause.

DAVID: And I go back to in basic form of plasma the charged ions combine in no particular direction unless under a specific force, which appeared because of what?

And I go back to the basic question of a universal conscious mind which appeared because of what? We are going round in circles! All three “first causes” require blinkered faith if anyone is to believe in them.

dhw: ***Under "theoretical origin of life": "There are two explanations for the origins of life's building molecules: extraterrestrial delivery, such as via meteorites, and endogenous formation. The presence of amino acids and other biomolecules in meteorites points to the former.”
See what I mean?

DAVID: We know that some amino acids arrived by meteorites. That is old news. Tells us nothing about how the necessary 20 amino acids, all left-handed appeared and were combined by some process to make active living biochemistry.

You missed the point. The article confirms what I told you would be the atheist approach.

DAVID: Our only difference then is the source of intelligent activity by cells. I have God as the source, and you don't know of a source, but God is possible.

dhw: Unfortunately, our fundamental difference is the NATURE of intelligent activity. You insist that each activity has been programmed or dabbled by your God, and the cells are automatons obeying his instructions, whereas I propose that cellular intelligence is autonomous.

But you have no explanation for the origin of cellular intelligence.

xxxxx

DAVID: I can't accept the complexity of the biology of life I fully understand without a designer.

dhw: And the atheist can’t accept the existence of an unknown, unknowable, hidden, inexplicable, sourceless, eternal, immaterial form of universal consciousness. You both refuse to take off your blinkers, but one of you is right. To each his own.

DAVID: But you agree design implies a designer, don't you?

dhw: Or designers. For instance, if all the increasing complexities of life were the product of intelligent cells cooperating, we would have millions of designers. The question then would be: how did the intelligent cell originate? And that question is on a par with: how did your God originate? And so back we go to “first cause”, as already discussed.

DAVID: It is easy to see intelligence in the purposeful activity of cells, since they are designed that way by their designer, who also is first cause.

dhw: Yes, their purposeful, autonomous intelligence could have been designed by a designer. And an atheist can say that their purposeful, autonomous intelligence, like life itself***, was the result of a lucky combination of mindless energy and matter, which is also first cause.

And I go back to in basic form of plasma the charged ions combine in no particular direction unless under a specific force, which appeared because of what?

dhw: ***Under "theoretical origin of life": "There are two explanations for the origins of life's building molecules: extraterrestrial delivery, such as via meteorites, and endogenous formation. The presence of amino acids and other biomolecules in meteorites points to the former.”
See what I mean?

We know that some amino acids arrived by meteorites. That is old news. Tells us nothing about how the necessary 20 amino acids, all left-handed appeared and were combined by some process to make active living biochemistry.

DAVID: Our only difference then is the source of intelligent activity by cells. I have God as the source, and you don't know of a source, but God is possible.

Unfortunately, our fundamental difference is the NATURE of intelligent activity. You insist that each activity has been programmed or dabbled by your God, and the cells are automatons obeying his instructions, whereas I propose that cellular intelligence is autonomous.

xxxxx

dhw: So what are you referring to when you tell us the odds are 50/50?

DAVID: On a chance basis it is either or, so only one is possible. 50/50 has always described that and therefore is never an opinion in and of itself. Personal choice is based on thoughtful analysis of the relevant facts.

dhw: 50/50 means there is an equal chance of each option being correct. 100% means dismissal of 50% of possible correctness. But I’m glad you recognize that those who have made their personal choice in favour of cellular intelligence must have based that choice on thoughtful analysis of the relevant facts.

DAVID: One makes a decision based on the degree of importance one gives to each fact.

Agreed. And if the facts in themselves leave the odds at 50/50, clearly your subjective assessment of them has no more validity than anyone else’s!

DAVID: I can't accept the complexity of the biology of life I fully understand without a designer.

dhw: And the atheist can’t accept the existence of an unknown, unknowable, hidden, inexplicable, sourceless, eternal, immaterial form of universal consciousness. You both refuse to take off your blinkers, but one of you is right. To each his own.

DAVID: But you agree design implies a designer, don't you?

dhw: Or designers. For instance, if all the increasing complexities of life were the product of intelligent cells cooperating, we would have millions of designers. The question then would be: how did the intelligent cell originate? And that question is on a par with: how did your God originate? And so back we go to “first cause”, as already discussed.

DAVID: It is easy to see intelligence in the purposeful activity of cells, since they are designed that way by their designer, who also is first cause.

Yes, their purposeful, autonomous intelligence could have been designed by a designer. And an atheist can say that their purposeful, autonomous intelligence, like life itself***, was the result of a lucky combination of mindless energy and matter, which is also first cause.

***Under "theoretical origin of life": "There are two explanations for the origins of life's building molecules: extraterrestrial delivery, such as via meteorites, and endogenous formation. The presence of amino acids and other biomolecules in meteorites points to the former.”
See what I mean?

dhw: So what are you referring to when you tell us the odds are 50/50?

DAVID: On a chance basis it is either or, so only one is possible. 50/50 has always described that and therefore is never an opinion in and of itself. Personal choice is based on thoughtful analysis of the relevant facts.

dhw: 50/50 means there is an equal chance of each option being correct. 100% means dismissal of 50% of possible correctness. But I’m glad you recognize that those who have made their personal choice in favour of cellular intelligence must have based that choice on thoughtful analysis of the relevant facts.

One makes a decision based on the degree of importance one gives to each fact.

DAVID: I can't accept the complexity of the biology of life I fully understand without a designer.

dhw: And the atheist can’t accept the existence of an unknown, unknowable, hidden, inexplicable, sourceless, eternal, immaterial form of universal consciousness. You both refuse to take off your blinkers, but one of you is right. To each his own.

DAVID: But you agree design implies a designer, don't you?

dhw: Or designers. For instance, if all the increasing complexities of life were the product of intelligent cells cooperating, we would have millions of designers. The question then would be: how did the intelligent cell originate? And that question is on a par with: how did your God originate? And so back we go to “first cause”, as already discussed.

It is easy to see intelligence in the purposeful activity of cells, since they are designed that way by their designer, who also is first cause.

dhw: When you look inside a human being, all you will see is automatic molecular activity. You can’t SEE intelligence! You can only identify it through behaviour. You claimed that my theory was “lonely”. It is not (see above). You have always acknowledged that it has a 50/50 chance of being correct. So once more, please tell us why it is more of a fairy tale than your God preprogramming or dabbling every new complexity in life.

DAVID: What is acting as the man behind the screen as in Wizard of Oz? The instructions the cell follows in its genome. My personal odds are 100%.

dhw: So what are you referring to when you tell us the odds are 50/50?

DAVID: On a chance basis it is either or, so only one is possible. 50/50 has always described that and therefore is never an opinion in and of itself. Personal choice is based on thoughtful analysis of the relevant facts.

50/50 means there is an equal chance of each option being correct. 100% means dismissal of 50% of possible correctness. But I’m glad you recognize that those who have made their personal choice in favour of cellular intelligence must have based that choice on thoughtful analysis of the relevant facts.

DAVID: I can't accept the complexity of the biology of life I fully understand without a designer.

dhw: And the atheist can’t accept the existence of an unknown, unknowable, hidden, inexplicable, sourceless, eternal, immaterial form of universal consciousness. You both refuse to take off your blinkers, but one of you is right. To each his own.

DAVID: But you agree design implies a designer, don't you?

Or designers. For instance, if all the increasing complexities of life were the product of intelligent cells cooperating, we would have millions of designers. The question then would be: how did the intelligent cell originate? And that question is on a par with: how did your God originate? And so back we go to “first cause”, as already discussed.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: When you look inside a human being, all you will see is automatic molecular activity. You can’t SEE intelligence! You can only identify it through behaviour. You claimed that my theory was “lonely”. It is not (see above). You have always acknowledged that it has a 50/50 chance of being correct. So once more, please tell us why it is more of a fairy tale than your God preprogramming or dabbling every new complexity in life.

DAVID: What is acting as the man behind the screen as in Wizard of Oz? The instructions the cell follows in its genome. My personal odds are 100%.

dhw: So what are you referring to when you tell us the odds are 50/50?

On a chance basis it is either or, so only one is possible. 50/50 has always described that and therefore is never an opinion in and of itself. Personal choice is based on thoughtful analysis of the relevant facts.

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.

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

dhw: You don’t understand it either and think I should be theistic! Why can’t any of you just accept that not everyone is able to share your faith in the unknowable?

DAVID: I can't accept the complexity of the biology of life I fully understand without a designer.

dhw: And the atheist can’t accept the existence of an unknown, unknowable, hidden, inexplicable, sourceless, eternal, immaterial form of universal consciousness. You both refuse to take off your blinkers, but one of you is right. To each his own.

But you agree design implies a designer, don't you?

dhw: When you look inside a human being, all you will see is automatic molecular activity. You can’t SEE intelligence! You can only identify it through behaviour. You claimed that my theory was “lonely”. It is not (see above). You have always acknowledged that it has a 50/50 chance of being correct. So once more, please tell us why it is more of a fairy tale than your God preprogramming or dabbling every new complexity in life.

DAVID: What is acting as the man behind the screen as in Wizard of Oz? The instructions the cell follows in its genome. My personal odds are 100%.

So what are you referring to when you tell us the odds are 50/50?

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.

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

dhw: You don’t understand it either and think I should be theistic! Why can’t any of you just accept that not everyone is able to share your faith in the unknowable?

DAVID: I can't accept the complexity of the biology of life I fully understand without a designer.

And the atheist can’t accept the existence of an unknown, unknowable, hidden, inexplicable, sourceless, eternal, immaterial form of universal consciousness. You both refuse to take off your blinkers, but one of you is right. To each his own.

DAVID: 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?

DAVID: 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.

dhw: When you look inside a human being, all you will see is automatic molecular activity. You can’t SEE intelligence! You can only identify it through behaviour. You claimed that my theory was “lonely”. It is not (see above). You have always acknowledged that it has a 50/50 chance of being correct. So once more, please tell us why it is more of a fairy tale than your God preprogramming or dabbling every new complexity in life.

What is acting as the man behind the screen as in Wizard of Oz? The instructions the cell follows in its genome. My personal odds are 100%

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.

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

dhw: You don’t understand it either and think I should be theistic! Why can’t any of you just accept that not everyone is able to share your faith in the unknowable?

I can't accept the complexity of the biology of life I fully understand without a designer.

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?

DAVID: 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.

When you look inside a human being, all you will see is automatic molecular activity. You can’t SEE intelligence! You can only identify it through behaviour. You claimed that my theory was “lonely”. It is not (see above). You have always acknowledged that it has a 50/50 chance of being correct. So once more, please tell us why it is more of a fairy tale than your God preprogramming or dabbling every new complexity in life.

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.

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

You don’t understand it either and think I should be theistic! Why can’t any of you just accept that not everyone is able to share your faith in the unknowable?

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.

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?

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?

DAVID: Enzymes from chance combination is sheer lunacy. Without a chemical education you are simply conjuring up pipe dreams.

dhw: If it were that cut-and-dried, all educated chemists and physicists would believe in God! You have traced the progress from plasma to organic compounds, which “exist naturally in the universe”, and I have no doubt that our atheist friends would claim that what followed was equally natural, and the conjuring up of a mysterious mind without a source and somehow within and without the plasma and the compounds and the enzymes is “sheer lunacy”.

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

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.

That puts you exactly on a par with the atheists.

dhw: I take issue with you on the question of “increasing” complexity. I don’t see that as a problem: once single cells began to merge into cell communities, and these learned to cope with or exploit ever changing conditions, increasing complexity seems to me to be a natural process.

DAVID: There is no question that complexity increased from the unexplained origin of life. The bold suggests somehow or other those cells 'learned' to respond to changing conditions and that somehow made them into more complex organisms. It is all made-up fairy tale for me. learning implies a definite mental process. How? What that leaves unexplained is the use of all left handed amino acids (which is an unnatural collection from normal processes) and the appearance of enzymes, which are giant molecules of a very specific designed shape, without which no organic reactions can occur quickly (think of each taking millions of years).

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?

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: Bearing in mind that we cannot possibly know what preceded the beginning of our universe, you refuse to consider the possibility of first cause energy and matter eternally forming new combinations until at last there was a stroke of luck. And you refuse to consider undesigned “primitive” material consciousness that evolves from bottom-up, preferring to believe in undesigned total consciousness that has always been there and works top-down. I find all three first causes equally difficult to believe in.

DAVID: Chance does not create the complexity of design present, and you agree. Panpsychism invokes consciousness from nothing with no real explanation, but implies the necessity for a mental deigning for advances. The bolded is frankly weird. The universe was initially plasma: positively charged atoms without their electrons, forced to be that way from extreme heat or strong electromagnetism. As those forces diminish atoms can regain their electrons and form inorganic compounds. Very simple organic compounds exist naturally in the universe. The next step is the requirement for enzymes to make more complex organic compounds to support an organization that can be life. I showed you James Tour's article. Enzymes from chance combination is sheer lunacy. Without a chemical education you are simply conjuring up pipe dreams.

dhw: If it were that cut-and-dried, all educated chemists and physicists would believe in God! You have traced the progress from plasma to organic compounds, which “exist naturally in the universe”, and I have no doubt that our atheist friends would claim that what followed was equally natural, and the conjuring up of a mysterious mind without a source and somehow within and without the plasma and the compounds and the enzymes is “sheer lunacy”.

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

DAVID: What is left is the obvious need for a designing mind in control of the processes that DID create life. Belief in a preexisting mind requires simple logic, nothing more.

dhw: I have never opposed the logic of the design argument. But you have always acknowledged that belief in your sourceless, invisible, immaterial, inexplicable, unknowable, unprovable, untestable conscious mind within and without the material universe requires faith. So does belief in chance. So does belief in bottom-up pansychist intelligence. 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.

I know that, but cannot understand the choice.