IMHO nature contains life and life is intelligence.
There may be random forces, and no dojubt
natural selection plays a role, but I can't help
but keep thinking that the intelligence of nature
is a big part of guiding evolution. If life is
intelligent, one can hardly avoid the phnomenon
of guided evolution.
BTW Saint Augustine believed that nature
was full of "seeds" of intelligence.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----
Time: 2012-08-30, 23:04:16
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On 8/30/2012 6:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:00:12 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 8/30/2012 5:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:19:32 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
If morals didn't exist, why would we choose to invent them? What possible
purpose could be served by some additional qualitative layer of experience on
top of the perfectly efficient and simple execution of neurochemical scripts?
Don't you see that the proposed usefulness of such a thing is only conceivable
in hindsight - after the fact of its existence?
We didn't invent them. They evolved. Evolution has no foresight, it's random.
Randomness is not omnipotence. It doesn't matter how many words I write here,
they will never evolve into something that writes by itself.
Exactly. Randomness is more likely to kludge up an adaptation than create an
efficient design from scratch. Your words don't evolve because they don't move
around and recombine randomly - except in your head.
Are you suggesting that if I add a randomizer that the words being spit out
will eventually learn to become an author?
That would be necessary but not sufficient. You'd need an editor (or natural
selection) to find something coherent.
Are you an Intelligent Design creationist?
Of course not.
Then why can't you accept that living systems are not designed, don't 'need' be
they way they are, are just formed by random variation and natural selection.
It takes advantage of what is available. Feeling sick at your stomach after
eating rotten food is a good adaptation to teach you not eat stuff like that
No, it isn't a possible adaptation at all. There would not be any such thing as
'feeling' or 'sick' - only memory locations and branching tree algorithms. This
is what I am saying, feeling makes no sense as a possibility unless you are
looking back on it in hindsight after the fact. Sure, to you it seems like
nausea is a good adaptation, but that's naive realism. You assume nausea is
possible because you have experienced it.
That's not an assumption - that's empiricism. An assumption would be that a
brain can't instantiate feelings.
Ok, then you know nausea is possible because you have experienced it. That
doesn't change the fact that nausea has no business being possible in a
universe driven only by bottom up evolution.
IT'S RANDOM! Having business assumes a goal, foresight.
You would have to use evolution to explain the possibility of feeling in the
first place, and it cannot.
So what feeling would work to guide you not harm a child? - how about that
'sick at your stomach' feeling.
That implies that T-cells need a feeling to guide them not to kill friendly
No it doesn't. T-cells are not social animals who need to care for their
T-cells are social organisms who need to care for the other cells of the body.
What's the difference?
For one the T-cells don't have young. Their 'feelings' are simple and don't
need to rise to level of being expressible or to be resolved with conflicting
feelings. You are again asking why some biological system 'needs' to be the
way it is, as though there is a designer who can explain his choice.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at