-
Was intelligence in the universe pre-existing?
No. "Life" is, as best we can tell, merely a very rare property of non-life.Would you then agree that non-life has the potential to give rise to life and intelligence? — kindred
No, it's actually manifest. "Intelligence" is, in its most basic form, the capability of adapting to change inherent in complex agent systems – both living and artificial.Would you also then agree that at the very least intelligence is a potential in the universe?
Okay, a quasi-animist. -
Was intelligence in the universe pre-existing?
Nonsense – "non-life" is not "nothing". :roll:you can’t get something from nothing just like you can’t get life from non-life — kindred
Besides, order emerges from disorder (e.g. vacuum fluctuations, hurricanes, languages)
And if "you can't get life from non-life", then either (A) everything is alive, (B) nothing is alive – "life" is an illusion or (C) biogenesis is a miracle – product of divine/transcendent intelligence aka "God". Which do you "believe", kindred? -
Was intelligence in the universe pre-existing?
No, I minimize judgments based on my anthropomorphic bias as much as possible.So you don’t believe that these processes exhibit intelligence from an anthropic perspective? — kindred
There is no "why" for "non-life" processes.If so then why would non-life lead to life? (Abiogenesis)
We do not know how yet. Scientists are still working to crack that nut.or put more simply how do you get intelligence from non-intelligence?
How do you/we know this?You can’t. -
Was intelligence in the universe pre-existing?I do not conflate intelligence and self-organizing processes. Do you equate intelligence with agency? Are you an animist? It seems to me your pan-intelligencism, like pan-psychism, is just a (reductionist) compositional fallacy – if local-temporal / particular "int", then global-eternal / universal "INT". :roll:
-
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here):rofl: Another conflicted true believer.
-
Was intelligence in the universe pre-existing?
In other words, does it make sense to conceive of 'inteligence in the universe without the universe existing' (i.e. disembodied agency)? :roll:Was intelligence in the universe pre-existing? — kindred
No, I don't think so.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/931639 -
The Problem of 'Free Will' and the Brain: Can We Change Our Own Thoughts and Behaviour?
With all due respect, I suspect a less superficial (non-technical) gloss on the topic of 'nonhuman intelligence' is popularist Yuval Noah Harari's Homo Deus (2016). YMMV.'The Book of Minds: Understanding Ourselves and Other Beings, from Animals to Aliens', Philip Ball (2022). — Jack Cummins
As far as I'm concerned, Jack, anthropomorphizing intelligence / mind (as you and others do) shows a basic lack of knowledge of cognitive sciences in general, artificial intelligence in particular and related concepts covered by the philosophy of mind. Your subjectivist / folk psychological qualifiers such as "intuition" "truly free will" "consciousness" "inner world" "emotion" "insight" "empathy and compassion" "truly free thinking" etc have nothing substantive to say about nonhuman – nonbiological – metacognition such as prospective AGI (or 'strong AI' ... rather than mere chatbots/LLMs & expert systems).
And you still haven't addressed, Jack, (1) why you assume 'self-aware intelligence requires consciousness (i.e. any phenomenology whatsoever)' or (2) why compatibilism (re: embodied volition – whether in biological or nonbiological systems) does not suffice to address the concerns of your OP. -
Can the existence of God be proved?Is theism 'either true or not true'? If yes, then this can be soundly demonstrated. However, if no, then theism is noncognitive (i.e. figurative, analogical, mythopoetic).
NB: I'm using 'theism' in this context to mean 'sine qua non properties attributed to g/G' such as
(1) an/the ultimate mystery
(2) that created the whole of existence
(3) and uniquely intervenes in (re: "providence") – causes changes to (re: "miracles") – the observable universe (i.e. nature). -
The anthropic principle and the Fermi paradoxI've read the book; what do you mean "our universe operates as suggested ..."?
-
The Problem of 'Free Will' and the Brain: Can We Change Our Own Thoughts and Behaviour?
Please explain what you mean by this phrase. Also why are you anthropomorphizing prospective AGI's metacognition (i.e. why assume that 'nonbiological thinking' is to think like humans)?truly free thinking — Jack Cummins -
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
:100:Israel is the aggressor, Hamas commits a war crime and Israel uses it as an excuse to step up its decade old aggression by committing even worse war crimes. — Benkei -
US Election 2024 (All general discussion)15September24
Another "assassination attempt"(?) today. I hope The Old Fat Fascist Clown lives long enough to see Kamala Harris sworn in as the 47th POTUS on 20January25. :victory: :party: -
What is the most uninteresting philosopher/philosophy?In other words, when one misunderstands it.
-
The Problem of 'Free Will' and the Brain: Can We Change Our Own Thoughts and Behaviour?
Maybe for you ... a stipulative definition suffices, however, for a subject matter-informed, speculative discussion: consciousness = pain-awareness (i.e. what bodily activity-feedback feels like, not just PNS reflexes).It partly comes down to the question of whatis[do we mean by] consciousness? — Jack Cummins
AGI =/= "artificial simulations" (whatever those are). As for "programming": same as neonatal pair-bonding + socialization in humans but with powerful neural nets instead: training metacognitive systems to self-learn within enabling-constraints. IMO, 'intelligence' = outside-the-box thinking that surpasses – repurposes – "programming" (i.e. not just "bot automatons").It also depends on what do the artificial simulations serve, and in accordance with whose will?
I don't – it's only a reductionist appeal to ignorance (i.e. woo-of-the-gaps) and/or compositional fallacy.If one has any sympathy with panpsychism ...
E.g. such as ...... beings with free will. -
What is the most uninteresting philosopher/philosophy?
Speaking only for myself ...Who would you name asthe 10[13]mostimportant philosophers born after 1900? — Joshs
Keiji Nishitani, b. 1900
Hannah Arendt, b. 1906
E.M. Cioran, b. 1911
Albert Camus, b. 1913
Philippa Foot, b. 1920
Walter Kaufmann, b. 1921
George Steiner, b. 1929
Clément Rosset, b. 1939
Martha Nussbaum, b. 1947
David Deutsch, b. 1953
Cornel West, b. 1953
Thomas Metzinger, b. 1958
Ray Brassier, b. 1965 -
The Problem of 'Free Will' and the Brain: Can We Change Our Own Thoughts and Behaviour?Intelligence =/= consciousness (& self-awareness =/= pain-awareness), so why do you assume consciousness – simulated or not – will be required for or is entailed by 'AGI'?
-
The Problem of 'Free Will' and the Brain: Can We Change Our Own Thoughts and Behaviour?Well, I assume that AGI, while self-aware, will not be "conscious" (i.e. feel pain).
-
Can the existence of God be proved?Some of us affirm "god exists" only in the heads of it's believers and nowhere else.
-
'It was THIS big!' as the Birth of the God Concept
How very charitable of you, Sir. :smirk:It might just be that the word god was the name given to anything that was unexplainable and originally meant "I don't know". — Sir2u
:100: :fire:[It] would be logical to assume ... god(s) came about from the initial belief of animism¹, which likely came about due to pareidolia². — Outlander
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism [1]
https://sites.uw.edu/libraryvoices/2024/02/03/pareidolia-the-phenomenon-of-seeing-faces-everywhere/ [2] -
What is the most uninteresting philosopher/philosophy?
:up: :up:Antinatalism is the poster boy for playing with Big Important Ideas not always leading to wisdom or insight. At least the minutia-mongerers among us aren't so foolish as to think there could be such a thing as an argument against life. — Srap Tasmaner -
The Problem of 'Free Will' and the Brain: Can We Change Our Own Thoughts and Behaviour?Perhaps the prospect artificial general intelligence (AGI) is "the next step in evolution" – post-biological metacognition. As a species h. sapiens today is removed from nature enough to be completely free of adaptive selection pressures making us an evolutionary dead end: from evolution (re: barely good enough adaptations) to development (re: strategic-technical optimizations (e.g. AGI)). Human "consciousness" – phenomenal self-awareness (i.e. subjectivity) – might be a spandrel¹ that is suboptimal (e.g. a metacognitive bottleneck) and therefore not needed to take that "next step". What do you think?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology) [1] -
What is the most uninteresting philosopher/philosophy?Besides scholastic, p0m0ist, idealist/psychologistic philosophies, I find antinatalism (or any other form of futility, defeatism, ontophobia, denialism) "uninteresting" for reasons beginning with these in this recent post:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/928003
coda:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/928725 -
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
:up: :up:It's factually correct that anyone who defends Israeli aggression is a war crime(s) apologist. — Benkei -
The anthropic principle and the Fermi paradox
No doubt. \\//_ :nerd:Are they overly influenced by watching science fiction? — Relativist -
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
As well the zionfascist (Likud) regime also "must be" "completely replaced". :mask:Which is why the victory must be complete and Hamas completely replaced. — BitconnectCarlos -
The Problem of 'Free Will' and the Brain: Can We Change Our Own Thoughts and Behaviour?
:yikes:You could be possessed. You don't know — frank -
The Problem of 'Free Will' and the Brain: Can We Change Our Own Thoughts and Behaviour?
Perhaps because "the puppet master" is merely a grammatical illusion (i.e. "doer" attributed to doing – "subject" of a predicate) that amounts to folk psychology's homunculus fallacy. Consider (e.g.) Buddha's anattā¹ ... Hume's bundle² ... Metzinger's PSM³ ... :chin:We have learned a bit about the strings and the pulling of them but are completely in the dark about the puppet master. — Manuel
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatt%C4%81 [1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_theory [2]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_model [3]
@Jack Cummins -
US Election 2024 (All general discussion)Today in Trumpenfreude
13Sept24 – $16.12 per share :down:NASDAQ (DJT :rofl:)
4Sept24 – $16.98 per share (-36% past month)
(NASDAQ 17,084.10) — 180 Proof
(NASDAQ 17,395.53) :up: -
Was intelligence in the universe pre-existing?"Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change." :fire:
Insofar as "before" is a synonym for without in this context, the above amounts to asking whether 'walking happened without legs' or 'vision without eyes' or 'life without mass' or 'minds without bodies' or 'patterns without primordial symmetry-breaking' ... wtf :roll:The question I have is…has intelligence always been around before this world was created prior to the Big Bang ...? — kindred -
Can the existence of God be proved?"Existence of God" (false predication) =/= "God exists" (re: matter of fact). You equivocate those phrases and thereby confuse the issue, FO. Btw, "proof" pertains only to logic and mathematics, not to matters of fact which, however, can be shown to be the case or not to be the case. "God exists" can be shown not to be the case.
-
Can the existence of God be proved?Afaik,"God" is an empty name that "exists" only in the heads of religious believers (i.e. superstitious, magical thinkers).
-
The Sciences Vs The Humanities"So scornful?" Why do you ask? Read the links I provided (the articles are simplified, non-technical summaries).
180 Proof
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2025 The Philosophy Forum