Well, I know how you look at the matter. I don't disagree with you if one accepts your definitional framework. I don't necessarily equate inherent self interest with "intelligence" as you do. In all opposites of existence, an element of matter "prefers" one or the other: warmer or cooler; more oxygen, less oxygen; more wind, less; saltier, less salty; drier, wetter;
Originally, these distinctions led to movement. And movement leads to learning. You call that intelligent but I prefer to be able to separate life into intelligent and not--otherwise the lack of a contrary value makes it (to me) sound somewhat unintelligible. :-)
But again...I think I understand your position and it really is a matter of semantics...
Certainly, there is no reason to invent a Zeus or an Apollo to explain why a bacterium shrinks from salt or expands toward sunlight. Life is a process of chemistry and energy interacting. We know that all religious mythologies are transparent tapestries of ignorance, sewn together by decaying sinew and long since shredded to rags by time and reason. That is all such people had. It does not mean, however, that the unknown that we seek to know may not yet be more awesome than anything we have dreamed! |
