I don't believe in the fundamentality of anything, definitely not tangible matter.

Atoms behave as atoms when interacting with other atoms, demonstrating the same level of intelligence. The same applies to molecules, though molecules utilize atomic intelligence in some of their interactions or communications. The shape of a molecule enables novel forms of interaction that cannot occur through single-atom interactions alone. Because of this, more complex processes can occur at the molecular level than at the atomic level, even though the atoms within a molecule continue to behave as atoms. — punos

You miss out the important argument. If humans don't interact uniformly with other humans, why do atoms? They're not "small" in the absolute sense, only in relation to us.

I forgot to address this:

They could be multiverses of something much smaller.

I hope you're familiar with the infinite loop universe theory. — Copernicus

Well, yes, maybe, but I haven't given the multiverse theory much thought, or at least it doesn't feature prominently in my model.

Yes, i'm familiar with the "infinite loop universe theory".

If humans don't interact uniformly with other humans, why do atoms? — Copernicus

Humans do interact uniformly with other humans. Can you give an example of humans not interacting uniformly?

Humans do interact uniformly with other humans. Can you give an example of humans not interacting uniformly? — punos

You don't talk to me or touch me the same way you do with your wife, nor do you approach your wife in the same repetitive loop every day. But all hydrogen atoms behave identically with oxygen atoms.

Do we have an undisputed definition for it, though?

What mitochondria and cells do?
(Putting viruses to one side for now.)

I’m no expert on this, there are many scientists, biologists who have analysed what’s going on. The problem is though, all we can see are materials, life might be more than that.

You don't talk to me or touch me the same way you do with your wife. But all hydrogen atoms behave identically with oxygen atoms. — Copernicus

It's not impossible for me to touch you like my wife. :razz:

But no, seriously now. Humans can touch each other in distinctly human ways, such as with our hands, and we communicate in human ways, like through sounds that we make with our mouths, and so on.

that's not uniformity or identical behaviour.

What mitochondria and cells do? — Punshhh

That's not a definition.

that's not uniformity or identical behaviour. — Copernicus

That is because it is about the form, and not the content. In this case the medium is the message as Marshall McLuhan would say.

That's just twisting facts.

That's just twisting facts. — Copernicus

Explain.

Explain — punos

Atoms don't have free will. They follow the principle of causality.

Non-living things don’t have choice, but they do have obedience.
Every atom, every particle behaves according to the same patterns: conservation of energy, momentum, charge, entropy.

Even in quantum mechanics, where events look random, the randomness isn’t lawless — it’s probabilistic law.
You can’t predict which atom will decay at what moment, but you can predict the rate of decay across many atoms with astonishing precision. That regularity means causality still holds at the statistical level.

So a single particle can’t “decide” to ignore physics any more than a number can decide not to be even or odd.

The atom is not bound by causality; it is causality crystallized.

Non-living matter obeys causality.
Living, sentient matter interprets causality.

Atoms don't interpret with cognitive ability. They obey. But actually, the obedience itself creates/forms atoms.

Many people say that consciousness is fundamental, but i have begun to think that it is intelligence that is truly fundamental.

There is a problem here, that intelligence is a means to an end. What is the end? This has been explored in science fiction. You know V’ger in the first Star Trek movie. An incredibly advanced intelligent machine, whose purpose is to return to its maker, a version of a Frankenstein monster. Then we have the replicant Roy in Blade Runner, who returns to his maker demanding more lifespan (he had a built in 4yr lifespan). What aimless use would he put it to if he had more lifespan?
Or the Borg in later productions of Star Trek. Where are they headed?

There is a theme emerging here, that AI, or intelligence given agency just results in grey goo.

On the other hand, life (as we know it), is naturally self reflective and seeks out where to go. Focusses on nurturing its life and ecosystem. Explores all possibilities within an arena. Does not destroy that arena, but seeks a balance, the development of utopias.

There is another problem here though. Humanity has already left the cocoon, womb of our arena. When we partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge (intelligence), we inadvertently stepped out of our arena of development. There is no way back in, the shell is cracked and the only course left for us now is the become the custodian of the living ecosystem.

This of course doesn’t contradict your predictions, but rather emphasises the importance of taking life with us on our voyage into the universe. A symbiotic relationship between life and machine(AI).

Atoms don't have free will. — Copernicus

Neither do you, but i won’t try to take that away from you, not that i could anyway. I can see that you won’t be understanding what i’ve been trying to say anytime soon. Take your time and think about it, or don’t; it makes no difference.

That's not a definition.

I’m not a Thesaurus.

Neither do you — punos

Basis of this accusation?

Atoms don't interpret with cognitive ability. They obey. — Copernicus

Intelligence is the cognitive ability to understand and interpret. Do atoms have that?

I didn't ask for a formal definition, but the fundamental idea that works as the baseline.

Intelligence is the cognitive ability to understand and interpret. Do atoms have that? — Copernicus

Intelligence gives birth to agency. Otherwise, we'd have to assume, according to your hypothesis, that non-living matters are paralyzed living creatures and the only thing that separates life from death is movement (although I don't know how you'd standardize that).

I didn't ask for a formal definition, but the fundamnetal idea that works as the baseline.

Cellular organisms. I think you’ll find that all living things are composed of colonies of cellular organisms.

Cellular organisms. I think you’ll find that all living things are composed of colonies of cellular organisms. — Punshhh

I've already stated that in the OP.

I've already stated that in the OP.

I’ll re-read it and get back to you.

I hope you'd have counterarguments on your way back.

I hope you'd have counterarguments on your way back.

Talk to the hand.

Intelligence is a higher order than consciousness. Every average Joe possesses sapience and consciousness. But not all of them work at SpaceX (analytical, technical, or mathematical intellect).

Talk to the hand. — Punshhh

That's a bummer.

It’s a joke.

I'm more interested in arguments at the moment.

Are you a robot?
I’m not joking.

I'm a human being.