The Day Of Their Return, 7.
Tatiana Thane, just before she mentions duty:
"'...[Cosmenosists] think reality is always growin' toward what is greater than itself...'" (pp. 129-130)
"...greater..." is mystically vague but she means intensifications or refinements of consciousness. So is reality always growing towards this? Well, no. What has happened so far?
There was an earliest moment with no earlier moments just as there are no points further north than the North Pole. At that earliest moment, condensed energy was released with natural forces that allowed for the emergence of a complex ordered universe rather than a random chaos. Were the forces "fine tuned"? Not by any intelligent being because intelligence had not emerged yet.
Energized complex molecules changed randomly until one became self-replicating, the first unicellular organism. Chemistry was not "growing toward" biology although presumably a random event would have happened some time. I understand that multicellular organisms are unlikely although they have evolved at least once. Consciousness was an accidental byproduct of natural selection. Organisms were selected for sensitivity. Pleasure and pain, if they were possible, would have survival value. Therefore, sensitivity quantitatively increased until it was qualitatively transformed into sensation.
Now that we are not only conscious but also self-conscious and intelligent, we can decide to work towards the goal of self-development but reality had not been growing towards such an outcome. There might be universes where some of the earlier random events like the fusion of two simple cells into a single complex cell allowing for the emergence of multicellular organisms did not happen.
Now that we are here, we can do something about it but we should not think that preconscious reality had had any inbuilt tendency to work towards us.
14 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't believe in materialism, for reasons developed in massive detail by John Wright at his blog, while debating another materialist. The dualism expounded by the late Mortimer Adler in books like THE DIFFERENCE OF MAN AND THE DIFFERENCE IT MAKES struck me as far more convincing.
Ad astra! Sean
Materialists believe that consciousness is neither reducible to nor simply identical with molecular or cellular interactions but that it is a new quality that emerges within organism-environment interactions. We do not understand how neuronic events cause subjective states and might be unable to understand it. However, we should continue to study neurology and psychology and how they connect. Neither obscurantism nor reductionism is either scientifically or philosophically acceptable.
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't believe you, nor do I believe materialists will ever be able to decode "how neuronic events cause subjective states." But they cam certainly study it.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You don't believe what? It is undeniable that consciousness has arisen in organisms with central nervous systems and that changes in brain states cause changes in mental states.
It is not just that materialists CAN study brain-mind interactions but that scientists MUST study them. Materialists do not claim that they WILL decode neuronic-subjective interactions. We do not know what will be discovered but there is only one way to find out.
Failure fully to decode this matter by any given date is in no way sufficient to warrant mind-body dualism. If brain states are not empirically discerned necessary and sufficient conditions for mental states, then what are they?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, I said I don't believe materialists will "ever" decode this problem. Scientists content to study the physical matter of the brain without pretending to know how subjective states or how non-material thoughts exist are, to me, more likely to make progress.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We don't know what will "ever" happen!
Materialists say that scientists should study the brain and should not pretend anything.
You seem to be arguing against a position that doesn't exist.
Paul.
Biologists have just created a unicellular organism that reproduces and eats -- effectively, dead matter into life.
Link?
I'd love to have more details
Is this the link, or at least another report on the same advance?
https://www.zmescience.com/science/biology/spudcells-division-grows/
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
That was interesting. I also have a vague recollection of reading somewhere that dead viruses can be "reactivated." But I might be wrong.
Ad astra! Sean
Most human beings need a religion. Sometimes they take a philosophy and make it into one!
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Would I be right thinking that Marcus Aurelius, in your Antonine books, came close to doing that with Stoicism?
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: Yes, though that was an 'intellectual' equivalent. He was a philosopher!
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree, and I have read the Emperor's MEDITATIONS. I knew some Stoics came close to philosophic monotheism.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment