[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[David M]

Hi Arlo

I was not sure what you were saying, but what you
say below is full of various assumptions and assertions
and does not really look at what the evidence is or
what we know of what does happen. I think more
agnosticism is required until we better understand the
processes involved. The fact that a fertilised egg & a womb,
can generate a potential human being (at what point do
we recognise a human full human being?) is utterly
amazing. The only thing we can compare this creation
to is the way we create machines yet the differences are
obvious. I agree that autonomous parts must be able to make
some form of 'choices' based on their own 'goods' yet
a whole human body is incredibly co-ordinated as a
whole and if there is nothing to enable such organisation
I am not convinced that nature would ever get past a few
cells able to work together or even create a cell, given
the vast books available on the science of the cell.

I think there is something we are missing, something to
do with how an organism is able to limit the behaviours of
its parts.

But I certainly don't know. So again, do you know?

David M

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Arlo Bensinger" <ajb102 at psu.edu>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)


> [Arlo]
> So while organization (or collective activity, or even 
> "organisation"  :-)) on a lower level gives rise to upper level 
> patterns, it is not a planned, deliberate activity to do so.
> 
> [Dave M]
> how do you know that?
> 
> [Arlo]
> Because, if for no other reason, proposing the reverse leads to a 
> world  that does not jibe with experience.
> 
> From LILA, "But it's as foolish to think of a city or a society as 
> created by human bodies as it is to think of human bodies as a 
> creation of the cells, or to think of cells as created by protein and 
> DNA molecules, or to think of DNA as created by carbon and other 
> inorganic atoms. If you follow that fallacy long enough you come out 
> with the conclusion that individual electrons contain the 
> intelligence needed to build New York City all by themselves. 
> Absurd." (LILA, 217-218)
> 
> For a cell to conceive of a "brain", and conceive of its function, in 
> order to design and build the brain, it would have to possess at 
> least as equally a powerful "brain" to begin with.
> 
> In other words, to say "let's get together and form a brain that can 
> manipulate complex symbols and engage in abstract thought", would 
> require those individual cells to possess brains that can manipulate 
> complex symbols and engage in abstract thought.
> 
> It would also require a cell to have an awareness of distance and 
> motion beyond itself for a cell to conceive of, and design, "feet and 
> legs", not to mention the ability to symbolically represent these 
> processes and activities _before_ the brain and legs were designed.
> 
> Plus, are you suggesting that only past cells had this ability to 
> preplan and create bodies according to some blueprint, but now modern 
> cells are automated and don't? Or are you suggesting that each 
> reproductive iteration involves groups of cells sitting around and 
> deciding to "make on more like we've been" or "try something new"?
> 
> Finally, do you think the cells also predesign cities and buildings? 
> Or did the cells just get together and decide to build a "human 
> consciousness" but then have no control over what that 
> "consciousness" does? If not, how were they able to plan on making 
> something so complex?
> 
> To clarify, the cells each follow "what is best", and in doing so 
> form collectives that function increasingly like "individuals" in 
> their own right.
> 
> 
> 
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>