> > > > > > > > > > --- "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I must say the idea that conscious phenomena are physically > > > > > unexplainable is jumping the gun a bit, hope the whole thing > > > > > doesn't rest on that as consciousness research is only > > > > > in it's infancy and while there are mysteries the research > > > > > that has been done is fascinating in showing how even > > > > > individual neurons can be mapped creating whole reaction > > > > > systems in the brain, influencing memory and desire and the > > > > > consequent action we choose to take. As I always say, let > > > > > the evidence speak for itself, and to do that we need to be > > > > > sure we have it all in before jumping to conclusions. Bit > > > > > early to say things we don't understand are impossible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > > > > > We're both at an equal disadvantage, not having read the book. > > > > But, like you, having scanned some reviews, one starts to > > > > 'take a view'. But I think you should take heed of your > > > > initial reaction - "He (Nagel) is an atheist poseur". Surely > > > > you would agree now that that was way, way off target? > > > > > > --- "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > > > > No. And I didn't say poseur either, as soon as the idea of > > > intelligent design pops up you know someone is taking the piss > > > as there aren't any irredcible structures in nature and there > > > are many theories about how mind is fundamental/inevitable/ > > > a consequence of/the reason for the universe and at present they > > > are all things you can choose to believe or not. They all point > > > to some sort of "special place" for us which sounds suspicious > > > to me. > > > > > > > --- "Jason" <jedi_spock@> wrote: > > > > Salyavin, please note that 'impersonal intelligence' doesn't > > contradict Darwin's evolution. In fact, it auguments > > evolution theory and makes it more apparent. > > --- "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote: > > In your opinion, unless you've got a definition of the term > that doesn't mean God in any other language. In what way > would any sort of other intelligence augment evolution do > you think? >
The totality of nature's laws is a form of 'impersonal intelligence'. This intelligence is the infinite self organising power of nature to arrange itself into larger and larger structures and patterns. You can see this at every scale in creation. Galaxies organise themselves into clusturs and cluster int osuper-clusters and so on. This doesn't contradict Darwin's theory, if this intelligence is more like a software code. If you study evolution closely you will notice there is a perfect balance between deteminism and randomness. Order and chaos. Nature's balance is razor sharp.
