So, to answer your question, we can't truly express anything with language, but it's the tool we have to communicate our experiences to others. — T Clark

Language is limited if it extends itself beyond descriptions of reality, logic or experience. It especially fails when it comes to describing emotions and sensations although poetry or song may be able to invoke or replicate the emotion that is intended to be transmitted by it.

On the other hand it’s great at transmitting ideas and knowledge be they abstract, conceptual or concrete as long as the language furnishes them adequately otherwise it would lead to misunderstanding.

Our extensive vocabulary must account for objects of perception and abstract thoughts and ideas in order to be an effective tool of communication and expression. Sensations produced by the nervous system such as taste can be captured by language too but because they are experiential and sometimes subjective they tend to not be expressed so well by language even though we know what the word sweetness is, the palette of sweetness evades linguistic expression because it’s bigger than our vocabulary can express.

What does it mean to say that language "expresses"? — tim wood

To describe some aspect of experience or reality. To articulate wants and communicate ideas.

You realize - yes? - that you're talking nonsense here. E.g., if a thing exists that is not an actual thing, and then it "manifests as an actual thing," then it is either the same thing or a different thing, and in-as-much as it goes from being a not-actual thing to an actual thing, then it's hard for me to see how it is the same thing. — tim wood

I’ve used the term pre-existing to describe a phenomenon that has always existed prior to its manifestation in nature in this case intelligence. As we have evidence of intelligence existing in the world it’s not unreasonable to ask whether it’s always been or only emerged at some point in time like matter did with the Big Bang.

We know with certainty that intelligence (human or non-human) emerged at some point in the distant past and that it emerged from inanimate matter, this must mean that it’s been there all along or it wouldn’t exist at all. Why would it exist if it didn’t exist ?

When I say it’s been there all along I’m faced with a problem because the same logic can be applied to matter as we know that it hasn’t been there all along, it only existed after the Big Bang. Yet we don’t fully understand the Big Bang either or how something can come from nothing which is not logically possible unless it’s always been there in some form or other eternally. This same logic can be applied when we talk about intelligence.

And as to the claim of the existence of not-existing things, it's incumbent on you to make clear just how that can be. — tim wood

I’m not claiming the existence of non-existing things, I’m claiming that something (matter, intelligence) has always existed.

Thanks wonderer that makes more sense, although abiogenesis is unsatisfactory at this time in terms of providing answers or conclusive explanation of how non-life to life happened it at least gives us something to work on.

When someone such as yourself claims that abiogenesis is how life came about, that is nothing but woo-woo. Then to add that it\s a scientific theory, is nothing but to use falsity to support your woo-woo. It is not a scientific theory because it is not supported by science, meaning it is not supported by empirical evidence. That there are scientists who have sought to support abiogenesis with science, but have proven to be unsuccessful, is simply evidence that abiogenesis is nothing but woo-woo. — Metaphysician Undercover

Abiogenesis is simply a theory of how life came from non-life, what’s woo-woo about that ? It’s just a word for a type of process(es) that occurred 3.5 billions of years ago during the inception of life. How can it be supported by science when we’re not privy to the conditions and events that transformed non living matter to living one 3.5 billions of years ago.

In the absence of alternative theories abiogenesis is just a label of how life came from non-life. You may dismiss it as woo-woo but it still remains a valid theory although it doesn’t have the answers of exactly how life came about, you have the right to remain sceptical about it.

You keep calling it woo-woo, but doesn’t all science aim and attempt to explain natural phenomena using the scientific method? You’re incorrect in your assumption that abiogenesis has the answer to how life happened. This may be speculative but it’s not woo-woo, we may never know how life occurred from non-life.

How would you be able to obtain empirical evidence of the creation of life from non life which is said to have occurred 3.5 billion years ago ? The best we can do is theorise.

The study of abiogenesis aims to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life under conditions strikingly different from those on Earth today. It primarily uses tools from biology and chemistry, with more recent approaches attempting a synthesis of many sciences. Life functions through the specialized chemistry of carbon and water, and builds largely upon four key families of chemicals: lipids for cell membranes, carbohydrates such as sugars, amino acids for protein metabolism, and nucleic acid DNA and RNA for the mechanisms of heredity. Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain the origins and interactions of these classes of molecules.

What part of the above is woo-woo when it clearly tries to use the scientific method to investigate how the transition from non-life to life occurred?

Actually, abiogenesis is what is best described as "woo-woo". — Metaphysician Undercover

I believe it’s an accepted scientific theory, what’s the alternative when it comes to explaining the origin of life ?

So, is your claim that something exists before it exists? Or is it something else? — tim wood

No my claim is that something exists before it manifests as an actual thing in the world, in this case intelligence. To me at least it has always existed. It’s manifestation in nature is merely the evidence that it always has existed. Does this make more sense to you ?

Inanimate matter could have continued to remain inanimate yet it didn’t because we have life (intelligence) so something happened to it which we can’t explain, we call this process abiogenesis. There are two options either intelligence is embedded in matter or it is separate from it. If it was the latter it must have acted upon matter to give it life, I hope this explanation does not sound supernatural but is one that makes logical sense. If it’s the former then there’s no issue as intelligence would simply be an inherent property of matter.

There is no absolute freedom. I am limited in various ways, due to the nature of my being. I cannot flap my arms and fly to Hawaii for the weekend. I cannot ingest dirt for nutrition. I cannot bear children. On and on. — Patterner

You’re restricted by the physical limitations of being human, would a bird capable of flying to Hawaii have more freedom than you in this scenario? The limitation can easily be overcome if you had your own private jet to fly to Hawaii whenever you pleased.

Freedom is not absolute in this sense because of the physical limitations imposed by the universe, for example we can’t (at least yet) go faster than light. Do such physical restrictions matter to you or would unlimited freedom only apply to a being such as God?

In order to answer the question of whether we are truly free we first have to know or define what freedom is. If freedom is the choice to live and make decisions freely without negatively impacting the freedom, property rights and wellbeing of others as protected by law then we are free as long as we don’t overstep the mark in terms of the effects it will have on others. Though I may be free to steal someone’s car I must live with consequence of this decision which is the removal of my freedom/liberty upon being caught and found guilty of this crime.

Freedom to do as one pleases within the realm of possibility is freedom enough as long as we operate within the laws of the land which don’t necessarily restrict freedom by having imperatives and consequences on certain choice actions such as murder, theft etc.

I’m truly free when I’m not bound by the causality of actions leading to a choice, in this respect I have free will, as long as I can make acausal choices or decisions.

The real issue with psychology is that it tries to treat non-organic problems organically that is through medication which can be inhumane rather than other more humane methods such as CBT for example. It makes too many assumptions about the workings of the brain by trying to simplify it. Mental health problems are not located in the brain but in the patients perception/cognition of the world. In this regard the field of psychiatry remains in the dark ages.

Emotion is something that is felt, take for example love, the degree to which it can be expressed in words is limited, we can utter I love you or we can perform non-linguistic actions such as buying them flowers to demonstrate it, yet what is felt when one is in love cannot be adequately expressed with words as feelings are non-linguistic in nature yet language can bridge the gap to a certain extent but not fully.

Just like we have a word for happiness what is felt is a purely subjective experience yet because of the commonality between other people we know what happiness is but not what is felt.

At one point in our history written and verbal language was primitive yet this does not exclude the range of human experience that is universal amongst men it’s just that despite the evolution of our language the full range of human experience cannot be truly expressed.

But what does this mean ? Does it mean there’s flaws in our language or that some parts of human experience are just ineffable ?

What if you witnessed a unicorn in fiction such as in a movie or a book, does the unicorn exist in this type of frame or it doesn’t exist because it’s not real? Do existents always have to have a one to one correspondence with reality. Do triangles exist in your view ? They’re not mythical but abstractions of thought. If a unicorn exists in thought the same way a triangle does why can’t we say it doesn’t exist ?

Nothing except saying that amounts to an evidence-free fairytale – pseudo-science (e.g. "intelligent design") or pseudo-philosophy (e.g. "vitalism, panpsychism") – that does not explain anything. — 180 Proof

My view is pantheistic more than anything and probably Spinozist.

Spinoza argued that whatever exists is in God. The divine being is not some distant force, but all around us. Nothing in nature is separate from Him: not people, animals or inanimate objects. Today, the view that God is synonymous with nature is called “pantheism,” and this term is often retrospectively applied to Spinoza. Whatever the label, the view was—and still is—portrayed as a denial of God’s transcendent power. Spinoza was accused of denying the ontological difference between God and His creations, thereby trivialising the creator.

Spinoza’s philosophy does not trivialise God in the slightest. It is true that in his conception God is intimately bound up with nature. But just because God is not separate from the world that does not mean He is identical to it. Actually, He is distinct, because there is a relationship of dependence that travels only one way: we are constitutionally dependent on God, but God is not dependent on us, argues Spinoza.

For Spinoza, everything we are, and indeed the continued existence of all things, is a manifestation of God’s power. Carlisle uses the term “being-in-God” to describe this aspect of Spinoza’s thought: the way we are created by—and conceived through—God.

Instead of power though I’m using the term intelligence which although not synonymous dictates how nature is a manifestation of such a power. I’m kinda new to Spinoza so you might have to help me with his conception of God, if he is eternal then so is the power and intelligence which precede its manifestation in nature.

In the first example, forcing someone to make a decision doesn't force them to make a neutral one — T Clark

The first example is a decision not based on neutrality, values or beliefs though. We’re not always making decision based on neutrality, personal beliefs or values but based on circumstances for example a poor person buys cheap products because they’re restricted by their finances not their tastes, values or personal beliefs.

No threats, but circumstances, such as: you have to work otherwise you will end up on the streets or no food on table is such an example of a forced decision, on the other extreme slavery was a forced decision too or a custodial sentence handed by a judge to a defendant a decision with which the defendant has no choice but to accept.

That is the reason that making decisions while being neutral is often considered best because one's chances of having correct beliefs or a lot closed than his chances of having wrong beliefs. So, the impact of personal beliefs in decision making can be good or bad it just depends on your beliefs — QuirkyZen

I can make correct decisions based on my taste rather then belief, the sense of taste is subjective to me for example I prefer to drink orange juice instead of cola because I prefer the taste of the former. This means I’m not being neutral yet I’m making the best decision for myself.

We can make unbiased decisions which turn out to be bad decisions for example arbitrarily backing a team to win at a certain sporting event which later turns out to be the wrong decision. That decision could have been easily made by flipping a coin rather than personal values or beliefs on the strength/weakness of such team.

It will really help if you can give us an example of a decision that you or anyone has made without input from personal values and beliefs. — T Clark

What about a forced decision, one that is imposed upon someone without their consent ?

Existent/thing: in humans, that which is, or possibly is, an affect upon the senses. — Mww

What about microscopic organisms which we can’t see with our naked eye but only through microscopes do they only exist when they’re perceived via such apparatus or independently of our perception ?

There are other things things that exist too which have no discernible affect upon our senses such as magnetism (a type of force which only affects magnetic material).

For how could it emerge if it wasn’t?

We don't know yet. — 180 Proof

Yes we don’t but we’ve given that process a name called Abiogenesis, the alternative would be woo-woo as to how life came about and we don’t want that.

What is wrong with saying life/intelligence not just emerged but it has been there all along just not manifested to what we today recognise as life ?

At what level of would you call it life is irrelevant because the intelligence displayed even from the structure of the atom to the way the solar system is aligned is apparent (even if life had not emerged there yet)

Isn’t it like looking at the mechanism of a clock and claiming there’s intelligence in action there or is your definition of intelligence more strict and narrow than that ?

Sure I will grant you this and that it can’t be empirically verified. And I or you cannot know for sure if it did exist in a prior universe as we can’t test it.

We can however make the following claims about intelligence which will yield proof in the end.

1. It inevitably manifested itself in nature, at least our reality (this universe)
2. If something is inevitable then it happens in this universe, the one prior and maybe the one after if conditions are right.
3. Intelligence exists as a possibility then actual after a period of time.

We also don’t know why there is life rather then non-life, after all matter could just do nothing and not bring about life (and thus intelligence) but something extraordinary happened, life. Which means that it must have been pre-existing not just as a potential but a real thing.

If life came from non-life can’t you say it was there all along ? For how could it emerge if it wasn’t? In this way we don’t need empirical proof to know that life/intelligence has always been around.

Not faith, I know Intelligence actualised in this universe, what’s your actual objection to it not having actualised in a prior universe also?

My argument has evolved slightly from the opening post as I’ve gained more perspective on the matter, and I’m thankful for the members who have taken part in this discussion so far giving me different perspectives and angles.

With that my argument is more concise and simpler and can be restated as such:

Intelligence precedes the universe, and has eternally existed independently of it and it’s manifestation in nature is inevitable.

It is inevitable because it has occurred at least once (in this universe). As such it’s likely that it has manifested itself prior to the current universe we just have no proof but have good reason to believe that it has done so.

Since the manifestation of intelligence turned out to be inevitable in this universe why couldn’t it have turned out to be inevitable in a universe before this one!

Am I missing something obvious captain ?



I assume your elocution skills have failed you.

You could wipe out your awareness/consciousness by eliminating sodium in your diet. Is this clear? — L'éléphant

Not sure I follow since I’m omitting a physical thing which is what sodium is.

Would you accept the analogy of fish to a pond, although the pond is just a container just like the universe the life in it would make the pond alive ? You’re saying the pond is dead I say it’s alive because it contains life just like the body is a container of the brain it means the whole is intelligent (the human being)

In any case this is besides the point of my OP but a fruitful distraction at the same time.

Intelligence was inevitable as it actualised my main argument is that intelligence precedes the universe and is a quality or thing independent of it.

Intelligence supervenes on the physical. That's the metaphysical assertion that I am claiming. Without the physical reality, there would be no morality, no subjective experience, no concepts of anything. — L'éléphant

How can intelligence be separate from matter to be able to supervene on it ? Are you claiming a diety?

If intelligence is distinct from the physical how can the non-physical affect the physical to give rise to life or other intelligent processes that occur in matter ?

Yes. 'Intelligence' is an emergent feature of sufficiently complex living systems. — 180 Proof

That’s like saying humans beings are not intelligent but only their brains are. This is a linguistic distraction at best from the argument that one of the properties/attributes of the universe is intelligence. I’m sure you don’t disagree with this. Although life itself may not be intelligent such as that of a bacteria it’s governed by intelligent processes, by not only which it emerged but operates. These intelligent processes are pervasive in the universe which would make the universe intelligent.

In my view, intelligence is a physical thing — L'éléphant

Is it not an attribute or property of a physical thing ? How can intelligence be a tangible thing that can be touched? How would you support your assertion if that’s the case ?

Since intelligence is a non-physical thing could it exist independently of matter or is it just an embedded property of matter? If it’s an embedded property of matter then physicalism would be true and false if otherwise.

Sure there would be differences. What’s your point ? Language is just used for naming and describing different things it does not necessarily follow that the objects being described are not lumps of mass.

Well the universe is hardly non-intelligent humans excluded so I don’t see how it’s such a fallacy. There’s definitely an intelligence at play from the orderly motion of the planets to the elegant structure of atoms. Are you saying the universe is non-intelligent irrespective if there is intelligent life in it ?

You have yet to provide proof that the universe is non-intelligent to support your claim, for how would you account for the intelligent laws of physics that account for the orderly movement of the planets ?

It’s like looking at the mechanism of a clock, wouldn’t you say there’s an intelligence behind such a mechanism ? Same for the solar system galaxies atoms etc.

Just a lump of mass? Suppose it has a mass of 500 grams. Is it the same as a 500 gram, lead fishing weight? — Relativist

Of course not they’re different objects with their own separate existence but they’re both just lumps of mass. Language here serves to differentiate between different objects.

Well life exists on one planet in the universe and there is good reason to think that life doesn't exist in vastly more places than it does, and that really doesn't seem all that mysterious to me. I think you might find it a lot less mysterious with some study. — wonderer1

That’s not the question I’m asking but I appreciate your input. We know one thing for sure, that matter went from being inanimate to animate in this universe at least. The process by which it did so is called abiogenesis and scientists still don’t know the exact mechanisms or able to replicate how it happened how life came from non-life.

The question is if intelligence is a property of matter or a thing in itself (which exists of its own) and acts on matter to make it come to life which is what actually happened as we are such intelligence. The other question is whether intelligence preceded the universe or even matter and is a fundamental function of existence itself.

In any case, the upshot of all of this is that the notion that the universe exists as it does 'because of chance' holds no water. — Wayfarer

Regardless of the improbabilities involved in yielding life from non-life the question is more fundamental than that and that is whether intelligence is a function or property of existence itself. We don’t really know why nature manifests intelligence but only that it does so which is perplexing to say the least.

Mass is a property that most things have, although photons are things that have 0 mass. — Relativist

Yes photons are confusing because they’re both waves and particles as far as i understand the concept.

By writing "matter(mass)" are you suggesting matter and mass are identical? They're not. — Relativist

I’d say that mass is not just a property but a thing in itself. My radio is just a lump of mass and not just a property of the radio. The problem appears to be linguistic here.

Ergo the universe is only an expanding (cooling, or entropic) vacuum fluctuation that is/was random / acausal / non-intelligent. — 180 Proof

Non-intelligent? Not so sure about that, because the universe contains intelligence it would make it an intelligent universe. This intelligence then is a property of the universe leading to both ordered (classical physics) and disordered (chaotic-random QM) systems.

This is confused. Energy and mass aren't existents (per se), they are properties of things that exist, and they can be converted to each other (that's entailed by E=MC^2). — Relativist

But matter (mass) is an existent of itself is it not ? Matter is mass as mass is a physical characteristic and exists in itself and can be used interchangeably to refer to matter (matter=mass=energy) so it is not a property of matter rather it is its own existent. The total mass of the universe for example is not a property of any one thing.

This is not to say there are no issues remaining. The main one here is convincing folk that "exits", "real" and "physical" are not synonyms. — Banno

Exactly this. Unicorns exist but they are not real. They exist as concepts (especially in fairy tales and they act too, fictionally speaking).

My definition of existence is anything that has being either in fiction or reality (physical world)

Then how did matter become intelligent unless intelligence was there to begin with.
— kindred
I think what you're really asking is how did consciousness or mind develop from the brain. This is the hard problem of philosophy. And this forum is teeming with threads like this -- really good ones, too.
The subjective experience is a hot button because 'no' philosophical accounts have given us the bridge from the physical to the phenomenal. The critics of consciousness and subjective experience had raised an unconscionable objection against the theories of perception that sort of 'skip' the step on when this -- this consciousness -- develops from physical bodies.
I don't have my own suspicion as to the strength of their argument because, to me, consciousness is physical. As in atomic. As in leptons. The fluidity of our own experience is physical. — L'éléphant

To simplify things I will equate most forms of life as a manifestation of intelligence even though they might not be intelligent themselves, they act in an intelligent manner such as bacteria or other single celled organisms or any other organism that is able to perpetuate itself through forms of replication.

Since this intelligence has manifested itself in nature I would say that it either preceded matter when it was non intelligent or non-alive or it co-existed with matter as potential for intelligence when it was non-living.

Therefore non-living things have the potential to be alive (and eventually intelligent through abiogenesis and evolution)

Perhaps the simplest and more uncontestable form of argument is to say that matter and intelligence exist in tangent. There’s certainly intelligence even in how the atom is structured, in how electrons go round the nucleus which in turn is glued together by the strong nuclear force that bind together neutrons and protons.