dhw: What convolutions? Firstly, my particular panpsychist hypothesis relates to the evolution of individual forms of mentation within matter, which is totally different from a single eternal, sourceless, universal mind that deliberately creates and manipulates matter. Since mentation exists, it must have started somewhere! You believe that it started at the top, with your God, and I am suggesting it may have started at the bottom with certain materials.-Answered in the other thread. Mentation starts with life and nerve cells. Your theory has no beginning
> 
> dhw: Secondly, the three hypotheses (your God, chance, and the evolution of “mentation”) are ALTERNATIVES, which I neither accept nor reject. That is to say, I cannot decide which (if any) of them is true, and so I withhold judgement on all of them. After so many years, dear David, you still haven't understood what I mean by agnosticism!-I fully understand your brand of agnosticism. It admits to all sorts of possible theories with a shut mind against all.


> DAVID: Just accept that something must be eternal, no beginning, no end.
> 
> dhw: I did so long ago. What I do not accept - or reject - is the theory that the “something” (energy and matter?) has a mind.
> 
> DAVID: So what did it have to create progress to now?
> 
> dhw: An infinite number of material combinations which eventually led by chance or by some inner “panpsychist” mental aspect (see the post on consciousness) to organic life and evolution - again, theories which I neither accept nor reject.-So actually you might accept some degree of 'chance' in your thinking? In panpsychism you are sneaking in some degree of 'mentation' which you reject when thinking about the possibility eternal mental energy. Interesting mental convolutions on your part to avoid choosing between chance or design.

Romansh:In the information.
> > 
> > David: I don't understand. Perhaps you should define what you mean by 'random'.
> 
> >>https://www.random.org/randomness/
> >> This is only one possible argument, and there are many others. When it comes down to it, I think the most meaningful definition of randomness is that which cannot be predicted by humans.-That is what I though random meant. Why are you applying it to the information in the DNA code?

Romansh:In the information.
> 
> I don't understand. Perhaps you should define what you mean by 'random'.->>https://www.random.org/randomness/
>> This is only one possible argument, and there are many others. When it comes down to it, I think the most meaningful definition of randomness is that which cannot be predicted by humans. Whether randomness originates from unpredictable weather systems, lava lamps or subatomic particle events is largely academic. While quantum random number generators can certainly generate true random numbers, it seems to me that they for all intents and purposes are equivalent to approaches based on complex dynamical systems.

David If the coded instructions in DNA are coordinated to produce cooperating functions of life, where is the randomness?
> 
> Romansh:In the information.-I don't understand. Perhaps you should define what you mean by 'random'.

If the coded instructions in DNA are coordinated to produce cooperating functions of life, where is the randomness?-In the information.


> Romansh: Where you see information and complexity in DNA a statistician will see increased randomness in our existence. Herein lies a contradiction for those who see complexity and in information in our existence and yet deny randomness.-If the coded instructions in DNA are coordinated to produce cooperating functions of life, where is the randomness?

dhw: let me reiterate that while I find it impossible to believe in chance as the designer of life in all its complexity, I find it equally impossible to believe in a sourceless, eternal, universal, immaterial mind. Since neither theory is supported by any proof, let alone “absolute proof”, I remain agnostic. -You are willing to look at chance and design and reject both, and therefore have no reasonable theory of our existence. 
> 
> DAVID: Just accept that something must be eternal, no beginning, no end.
> 
> dhw:I did so long ago. What I do not accept - or reject - is the theory that the “something” (energy and matter?) has a mind.-So what did it have to create progress to now?

The point I am making is the information of the design in a snowflake is very simple information, like in any crystal, compared to the highly complex information in DNA that develops specified complexity, and the implication of where that comes from.-And yet there is more information in a random set of numbers than in a patterned set of numbers.-0100010001100001011101100110100101100100001000000101010001110101011100100110010101101 10001101100 -Compared to:-0100001001100001011001000100001001100001011001000100001001100001011001000100001001100 00101100100 -Where the pattern is repeated.-Of course neither set is truly random, but the first set will be closer to random when analysed statistically. -Where you see information and complexity in DNA a statistician will see increased randomness in our existence. Herein lies a contradiction for those who see complexity and in information in our existence and yet deny randomness.


> Romansh: There is information in a snow flake and a rock ...
> 
> Are you arguing there is no design to be "recognized" in a snowflake and that it is all 'mechanics' in some way?
> 
> A panentheistic view surely takes the position that there is "design" in a snowflake because there is god in a snowflake?-The point I am making is the information of the design in a snowflake is very simple information, like in any crystal, compared to the highly complex information in DNA that develops specified complexity, and the implication of where that comes from.


> dhw: Design is indeed the issue. You asked if anyone could find a flaw in the ID argument presented by the article. I have pointed out that man-made designs (campfires, buildings and technology) are not “natural structures”, and that is how we know they were designed by humans. We have no precedent for “natural structures”, and so we have no way of knowing whether they are or are not designed by an intelligent mind. That is what I see as the flaw in the argument. -The use of human designed objects is just an example of how we can detect design. the evidence is strongly suggestive of design in nature, but I agree not absolute proof, which is what you always want.
 
> 
> dhw: Most panpsychist theories do go back to a universal divine consciousness, but of course they too offer “no explanation of where that came from” - other than the non-explanation of ‘first cause', which can apply equally to non-conscious primal energy. So you pays your money and you takes your choice: inexplicable from the top downwards, or inexplicable from the bottom upwards.-Just accept that something must be eternal, no beginning, no end.

Romansh: By this logic a snowflake is intelligently designed.
> 
> A snowflake is a simple expression of how the H20 molecule is formed, covered by a simple math formula.
> > 
> > Romansh: For god's sake rocks by this logic are intelligently designed.
> 
> Only if one becomes Michelangelo's "David".
> 
> The essay discusses the ability to recognize design and the enormous information in DNA to create life. You've neatly sidestepped the issue.-There is information in a snow flake and a rock ...-Are you arguing there is no design to be "recognized" in a snowflake and that it is all 'mechanics' in some way?-A panentheistic view surely takes the position that there is "design" in a snowflake because there is god in a snowflake?


> http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06/must_we_directl097021.html
> 
> dhw: However, we do not know the origin of natural structures, and unlike the products of our own intelligence, there is no precedent by which to judge whether they result from intelligent design or simply look as if they have been designed (Romansh's snowflake makes the point).-no it doesn't as I've explained. It is simply a frozen copy of the molecule, but that brings us back to the issue of: is every molecule designed?-> dhw: The ID argument might be compared to David's refusal to contemplate the possibility that bacteria are intelligent: they may look intelligent, he says, but they are not. Individuals may have their own favourite theory, but we are once again back to our three possible sources of natural "design": divinity, chance, a form of panpsychism.-Panpsychism again takes us back to the existence of 'mindfulness' in everything, with no explanation of where that came from, or it is it simply a branch of a universal divine consciousness?

Romansh: By this logic a snowflake is intelligently designed.-A snowflake is a simple expression of how the H20 molecule is formed, covered by a simple math formula.
> 
> Romansh: For god's sake rocks by this logic are intelligently designed.-Only if one becomes Michelangelo's "David".-The essay discusses the ability to recognize design and the enormous information in DNA to create life. You've neatly sidestepped the issue.