How would we be able to determine intelligent life existed pre big bang?

In my opinion intelligence must have been pre-existing and manifested (or re-manifested) itself in life and nature and through us human beings. — kindred

If God made the universe, yes. (Where he lived before he made the universe is anybody's guess.)
Otherwise, no: intelligence had to wait until a brain evolved someplace. Maybe not only here; maybe many intelligent entities have been and are scattered across the galaxies. Odds are, we'll never meet one to compare IQ's.

abiogenesis which has not been observed scientifically remains a mystery — kindred

Here is my response to a similar claim you made in the "God" discussion.

Have you looked at the scientific discussion of abiogenesis? It's just one more of the questions for which there are hypotheses but no accepted theory. Other examples - a theory that unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics, dark matter and energy, and the manifestation of experience from neurological processes. Do you think those questions "confound" scientists? If so, well, that's just how science works. — T Clark

"Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change." :fire:

The question I have is…has intelligence always been around before this world was created prior to the Big Bang ...? — kindred

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:

Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change." — 180 Proof

That's presumably not the definition operative the OP..

Perhaps the OP could clear this up.

Otherwise, no: intelligence had to wait until a brain evolved someplace. — Vera Mont

Intelligent Beings Without Brains Are Abundant In Nature–A Growing Scientific Consensus

Levin’s study published last week shows a slime mold, a brainless blob called Physarum, sensing cues in its environment and making a decision about where to grow. The findings suggest it’s “able to build a picture of the world around itself using a kind of sonar. It's a kind of biomechanics,” says Levin. “It's sitting on this gelatin and it's sensing the way that all the objects around it are putting strain on that gelatin. By watching those mechanical signals it figures out where the different bigger and smaller objects are, and then it makes decisions which way it's going to crawl.”

An important feature in the study’s design is that there was no food used in this experiment. Previous studies demonstrating Physarum learning and memory use food (smell and taste), also called chemical sensing. Levin’s study shows Physarum also uses another sense. It uses touch to detect objects at a distance.

It’s only good science to ask whether there could be any other explanation than thinking. Unlike a compass that may spin and then point north, Physarum are capable of processing memories of past experience with competing sensory inputs in real-time while doing computations that can and do change how it will respond.

“Here's what it's definitely doing,” Levin offers. “It's definitely doing decision-making. Because out of the different options in its environment, it always chooses to go towards the bigger distribution of mass.” In addition to decision-making, it’s also sensing and processing information. “For the first few hours, before it grows out in any direction, it's acquiring information and figuring out which way it's going to go.” — Andréa Morris (Forbes)

The argument from Aristotle is that a body is an organized existence, and an agent is required for any type of organization, as the organizer. Therefore the agent as organizer, is prior in time to the existence of the body. Of course abiogenesis is the basis for a denial of the secondary premise, but as the op points out, it's not a justified denial.

In my opinion intelligence must have been pre-existing and manifested (or re-manifested) itself in life and nature and through us human beings. — kindred

Is that opinion just a wild guess, or do you believe you can rationally justify it?

Here's my opinion. There are two broad possibilities:
1) Intelligence (which entails a mind) just happens to exist, with neither reason nor cause.
2) Intelligence developed naturally, and gradually, at least once over billions of years in a vast universe.

Possibility 2 seems more plausible. The development of intelligence on any specific planet is very low probability, but the number of planets in the universe is so enormously large that it is a near certainty to occur at least once.

I believe I can rationally justify it. Intelligence as we know exists throughout nature. There are certainly phenomena in nature which exhibit intelligence by design such as photosynthesis although I’m not making the claim for an intelligent designer I’m simply claiming that nature has managed to create wonders which show some kind of intelligence in action. I do not believe this to be blind luck but intelligence.

The question is both why and how and although we can’t yet explain or at least demonstrate how life came from non-life I’m not invoking god of the gaps to explain it. I’m merely invoking a pre-existing intelligence which was able to self organise, replicate, reproduce and exhibit life.

That's presumably not the definition operative the OP..

Perhaps the OP could clear this up. — bert1

There’s nothing wrong with that definition so I’m happy to use it.

Have you looked at the scientific discussion of abiogenesis? It's just one more of the questions for which there are hypotheses but no accepted theory. Other examples - a theory that unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics, dark matter and energy, and the manifestation of experience from neurological processes. Do you think those questions "confound" scientists? If so, well, that's just how science works. — T Clark

Thanks for pointing it out and that post I made there was the inspiration behind this topic. Regarding abiogenesis it seems to me to provide the argument that I’m looking for when it comes to intelligence being pre-existing and preceding the Big Bang. We clearly see in nature signs of intelligence in almost every creature in the way they have carved niches and adapted to their environments respectively through natural selection even trees and plants through the photosynthesis exhibit a mechanism that even man is not yet able to replicate with the level of efficiency that nature naturally does.

The universe could have easily not yielded life or intelligence yet we see it manifest in this planet in many forms and there are two possibilities as either intelligence in this post big bang world has emerged for the first time or it has been around before it and the evidence suggests to me that you can’t just introduce intelligence or life into the universe without precedence, it must have always been around not just because life and intelligence is special but because the step from inanimate matter to organic life is just to big to have happened by chance alone and would imply a pre-existing intelligence.



I can’t prove that I’m merely hypothesising that intelligence probably existed prior to the Big Bang and it’s not the first time life or intelligence has emerged post big bang but that it probably has emerged before at least if you believe in a cyclical universe but even if this was the first universe created without precedence then it would mean intelligence in this world has no precedence and it’s the first time it has manifested through creation. This is hard to accept and it’s easier it assume that it has always existed or at least existed prior than to assume it’s the first time it has manifest.

...it must have always been around not just because life and intelligence is special but because the step from inanimate matter to organic life is just to big to have happened by chance alone and would imply a pre-existing intelligence. — kindred

Have you ever studied the evidence for biological evolution, and the rather Rube Goldberg like mechanism that have often resulted from biological evolution? (Consider the perception thread for an example of the consequences of such Rube Goldberg like 'design'.)

In any case, do you have an argument against abiogenesis that amounts to more than an argument from incredulity? Can you show your math as to how you have calculated the probability of abiogenesis occurring anywhere in the universe?

There are certainly phenomena in nature which exhibit intelligence by design such as photosynthesis although I’m not making the claim for an intelligent designer I’m simply claiming that nature has managed to create wonders which show some kind of intelligence in action. I do not believe this to be blind luck but intelligence. — kindred

Sounds like an implicit false dichotomy: blind luck vs intelligent design. The correct comparison would be: undirected natural selection vs intelligent design.

I’m merely invoking a pre-existing intelligence which was able to self organise, replicate, reproduce and exhibit life. — kindred

You have a regress problem: you're accounting for the "intelligence" of life by assuming another intelligence exists. Why doesn't the same logic apply to that prior (non-bioligical life) intelligence? Do you assume it just happens to exist uncaused?

How is this MORE plausible than my hypothesis: life (which you suggest entails intelligence) develops naturally and gradually over billions of years - iff some narrow set of conditions existed at key points of its development?

In any case, do you have an argument against abiogenesis that amounts to more than an argument from incredulity? Can you show your math as to how you have calculated the probability of abiogenesis occurring anywhere in the universe? — wonderer1

Hi wonderer1, thanks for your input, you’ve made a good point. The chance of abiogenesis happening is obviously 1 as life did in fact emerge from non-life. Scientists so far are unable to reproduce experimentally how this occurred however I’m not basing my argument around this non-reproducibility I’m making the rather bold claim that intelligence is an inherent part of nature whether this is existed just post big bang is debatable and that in fact it has existed before.

Scientists so far are unable to reproduce experimentally how this occurred however I’m not basing my argument around this non-reproducibility... — kindred

Scientists don't have labs the size of the universe or grants lasting billions of years. In any case, supposing scientists did find a highly detailed and plausible account by which abiognesis might have occurred on Earth, I don't know how it could be shown that such an account is the correct account.

I’m making the rather bold claim that intelligence is an inherent part of nature whether this is existed just post big bang is debatable and that in fact it has existed before. — kindred

Do you think intelligence can exist sans an infomation processing substrate for intelligence to supervene upon? (E.g. a brain.)

If so, why?

If not, what would have served as such an information processing substrate before the big bang? (BTW, it is questionable whether "before the big bang" meaningfully refers to anything. It may well be similar to "north of the North pole.")

How is this MORE plausible than my hypothesis: life (which you suggest entails intelligence) develops naturally and gradually over billions of years - iff some narrow set of conditions existed at key points of its development? — Relativist

Sure that’s a nice hypothesis I like it however it implies that life could still have existed pre-big bang if those conditions were somehow met during a pre big bang world which would support my argument that not only is intelligence inevitable but that it’s an inherent feature of the universe pre or post big bang.

This not only means that intelligence/life emerges inevitably from non-life but that it’s a manifestation of a pre-existing intelligence. Strong claim indeed.

Do you think intelligence can exist sans an infomation processing substrate for intelligence to supervene upon? (E.g. a brain.)

If so, why?

If not, what would have served as such an information processing substrate before the big bang? (BTW, it is questionable whether "before the big bang" meaningfully refers to anything. It may well be similar to "north of the North pole.") — wonderer1

What we do know is that intelligence exists in some type of nervous system i.e. organic brains. It’s not to far fetched or impossible for such intelligence or information processing to occur through other processes, even current primitive AI is capable of decision making as long as goals are provided to it and we’re barely scratching the surface of AI in terms of capability and it’s not to impossible to imagine an AI, 200 years from now to be self directed in terms of goal setting which would not only exhibit sentience but consciousness (perhaps).

The question is whether such an intelligence could come about on its own unaided by human intelligence and I don’t see why not. We don’t really know what nature is capable off.

Sure that’s a nice hypothesis I like it however it implies that life could still have existed pre-big bang if those conditions were somehow met during a pre big bang world which would support my argument that not only is intelligence inevitable but that it’s an inherent feature of the universe pre or post big bang. — kindred

"Could have" = it's logically possible, not that there's any good reasons to believe it to be the case that life existed before the big bang. We know nothing about the pre-big bang conditions, but we know some of the conditions necessary for life to arise in our universe, and there's no reason to believe those conditions existed prior to the big bang.

This not only means that intelligence/life emerges inevitably from non-life but that it’s a manifestation of a pre-existing intelligence. Strong claim indeed.

Your "strong claim" is a non-sequitur. My analysis only implies that life is inevitable (but rare) in this universe. You've still given no reason to think it's a "manifestation of pre-existing intelligence" - you seem to be treating the bare possibility that life MAY HAVE existed prior to the big bang as a strong reason to believe it was actually the case.

So what's your point?

Levin’s study published last week shows a slime mold, a brainless blob called Physarum, sensing cues in its environment and making a decision about where to grow. The findings suggest it’s “able to build a picture of the world around itself using a kind of sonar. It's a kind of biomechanics,” — Andréa Morris (Forbes)

Even if you call 'a kind of biomechanics' intelligence and growth in favourable conditions decision-making (which definitions are not widely shared), that clever pre-universe mold would have needed a substrate on which to live and grow and make decisions about.

I agree with your assertion that intelligence predates the Big Bang. This premise seems necessary, as without it, the occurrence of a Big Bang (especially one that leads to the intricate complexity we observe in our universe) would be impossible.

The key point i'd emphasize is that this primordial intelligence represents the most fundamental form of intelligence possible. It may possess consciousness without self-awareness, or perhaps lack consciousness entirely. However, this distinction doesn't diminish its ultimate potential.

To elaborate further, this rudimentary intelligence evolves and becomes more sophisticated through the process of emergence and complexification. Each new level of emergence represents a higher order of intelligence. The progression can be observed across various scales as follows:

1. Quantum intelligence
2. Atomic intelligence
3. Stellar intelligence
4. Molecular intelligence
5. Cellular intelligence
6. Social intelligence
7. Technological intelligence
8. And beyond

These stages represent emergent levels of intelligence, with each subsequent level demonstrating greater capabilities than its predecessor. This hierarchical development illustrates the ongoing evolution and complexification of intelligence throughout the cosmos.

I think intelligence is at its most basic a logical structure ingrained/fundamental within nature.

A form of consistency or coherence that binds all things together -meaning that nature is "accessible" in a rational capacity. That deductions and inferences as well as predictions can be consistently made by contemplating it.

Was intelligence in the universe pre-existing? — kindred

In other words, does it make sense to conceive of 'inteligence in the universe without the universe existing' (i.e. disembodied agency)? :roll:

No, I don't think so.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/931639

Intelligent Beings Without Brains Are Abundant In Nature–A Growing Scientific Consensus — Agree-to-Disagree

In Feeling & Knowing: Making Minds Conscious, Antonio Damasio has a bit to say about this.

Intelligence, in the general perspective of all living organisms, signifies the ability to resolve successfully the problems posed by the struggle for life.
.........
We know that the most numerous living organisms on earth are unicellular, such as bacteria. Are they intelligent? Indeed they are, remarkably so. Do they have minds? No, they do not, I believe, and neither do they have consciousness. They are autonomous creatures; they clearly have a form of “cognition” relative to their environment, and yet, instead of depending on minds and consciousness, they rely on non-explicit competences—based on molecular and sub-molecular processes—that govern their lives efficiently according to the dictates of homeostasis.
.........
Sensing is not perceiving, and it is not constructing a “pattern” based on something else to create a “representation” of that something else and produce an “image” in mind. On the other hand, sensing is the most elementary variety of cognition. — Damasio

In other words, does it make sense to conceive of 'inteligence in the universe without the universe existing' (i.e. disembodied agency)? :roll:

No, I don't think so. — 180 Proof

I would claim that something has always existed, as existence is a brute fact. The question I ask whether prior to the Big Bang and this universe if there has been intelligence in it. Physics or the laws of physics might have been different prior to the Big Bang, how different we do not know, yet it has yielded a largely ordered and organised universe post big bang. This means one of two things either this intelligence has precedence or it does not. I’m of the belief that if the post big bang world contains this type of intelligence (from the alignment of the planets to life itself) then it’s not unlikely that the pre-big bang world had similar levels of self-organising intelligence in it.

What I am not saying is just because us as human beings are able to formulate mathematical formulas modelling reality does not mean that reality itself is not intelligent but rather our own intelligence is a by product of intelligence built in the universe and not only was intelligence inevitable but that it has always existed from the beautiful mathematical and physical formulas that govern the motion of macro-micro bodies from electrons to planets etc.

I find this intelligence obviously fascinating by that I don’t quite mean that matter is alive but by the process of abiogenesis it’s able to transition from non-organic life to an organic one that can replicate reproduce and even think.

The physical laws that govern even matter (otherwise it would fall apart) making it bind and be solid (or transition to other phases based on temperature) means that this intelligence is not merely confined to minds but its built into the fabric of the universe and reality which doesn’t just exhibit a certain elegance to it but beauty as well, leads me to believe that it couldn’t just have existed post-big bang. Sure the pre-big-bang universe might have had different laws altogether but they still would have exhibited the same level of intelligence whatever that type of universe looked like.

So I believe that intelligence (order, change, adaptability) has always existed in one form or another regardless of the current iteration of the universe.

These stages represent emergent levels of intelligence, with each subsequent level demonstrating greater capabilities than its predecessor. This hierarchical development illustrates the ongoing evolution and complexification of intelligence throughout the cosmos. — punos

Your view is that intelligence evolves with the progress of the universe. My belief is that intelligence from inception has no such ceilings. It’s products might show different levels of intelligence such as the difference between a fish and a human being but intelligence itself governing the universe has no such limits such as is confined to each different creature.

I think intelligence is at its most basic a logical structure ingrained/fundamental within nature. — Benj96

I agree. There’s certainly beauty and elegance in mathematical formulas describing the physical world and this is no mere chance but the product of an intelligence which predates the current universe.

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:

So you don’t believe that these processes exhibit intelligence from an anthropic perspective? Just because there’s an intelligence behind the motion of moving bodies like planets etc I’m not claiming it’s conscious or that it is alive but rather that there’s an intelligence behind such motions otherwise they wouldn’t stay in orbit and collapse (thus no life).

I’m neither animist or panpsychist but i do believe that intelligence is an inherent part of existence otherwise there would be no motion of the planets, no life and fundamentally nothingness.

Let me ask you this do you think an ant colony is intelligent? in a way it’s just a more highly evolved self-organising process or would you say that its life and you’re referring to non-organic life processes ?

If so then why would non-life lead to life? (Abiogenesis) or put more simply how do you get intelligence from non-intelligence? You can’t.

So you don’t believe that these processes exhibit intelligence from an anthropic perspective? — kindred

No, I minimize judgments based on my anthropomorphic bias as much as possible.

If so then why would non-life lead to life? (Abiogenesis)

There is no "why" for "non-life" processes.

or put more simply how do you get intelligence from non-intelligence?

We do not know how yet. Scientists are still working to crack that nut.

You can’t.

How do you/we know this?

– if local-temporal / particular "int", then global-eternal / universal "INT". :roll: — 180 Proof

At first it looks like a compositional fallacy yet at the same time you can’t get something from nothing just like you can’t get life from non-life unless there’s always been a type of eternal/universal intelligence in the first place otherwise non-intelligence would have always existed and not given rise to the intelligence we observe now.

you can’t get something from nothing just like you can’t get life from non-life — kindred

Nonsense – "non-life" is not "nothing". :roll:

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?

Would you then agree that non-life has the potential to give rise to life and intelligence? Would you also then agree that at the very least intelligence is a potential in the universe?