If God made the universe, yes. (Where he lived before he made the universe is anybody's guess.)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
abiogenesis which has not been observed scientifically remains a mystery — kindred
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
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
Otherwise, no: intelligence had to wait until a brain evolved someplace. — Vera Mont
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)
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
That's presumably not the definition operative the OP..
Perhaps the OP could clear this up. — bert1
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
...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
Sounds like an implicit false dichotomy: blind luck vs intelligent design. The correct comparison would be: undirected natural selection vs intelligent design.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
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?I’m merely invoking a pre-existing intelligence which was able to self organise, replicate, reproduce and exhibit life. — kindred
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
Scientists so far are unable to reproduce experimentally how this occurred however I’m not basing my argument around this non-reproducibility... — kindred
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
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
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
"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.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
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.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.
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.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)
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
In Feeling & Knowing: Making Minds Conscious, Antonio Damasio has a bit to say about this.Intelligent Beings Without Brains Are Abundant In Nature–A Growing Scientific Consensus — Agree-to-Disagree
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
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
I think intelligence is at its most basic a logical structure ingrained/fundamental within nature. — Benj96
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 know this?You can’t.
– if local-temporal / particular "int", then global-eternal / universal "INT". :roll: — 180 Proof
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.