No, they are independent, discrete properties which very infrequently overlap. — 180 Proof
How do you/we "know" this? — 180 Proof
I disagree. Intelligence did develop in complex organisms and it is cumulative -- so there must be the 'infrastructure' of brain and body. And this infrastructure must continue to change/progress in ways that could accommodate higher innovations.The question I have is…has intelligence always been around before this world was created prior to the Big Bang or was it simply an emergent phenomenon thereafter ?
In my opinion intelligence must have been pre-existing and manifested (or re-manifested) itself in life and nature and through us human beings.
As to how life emerged from non-life through abiogenesis which has not been observed scientifically remains a mystery which gives credence to a pervading intelligence prior to the existence of this universe. — kindred
It sounds like your view is that the intelligence must be there first before we could be the intelligent life forms. But it is more reasonable to think that matter must be there first -- the brain, the body, the senses for neural connections to occur. — L'éléphant
It seems you are basing that on some kind sense of likelihood. I don't think we can do any calculation of likelihood in this kind of case, so your conviction remains an intuitively or psychologically, not a rationally, motivated one. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but I think it's important to "call a spade a spade — Janus
Matter precedes intelligence.Then that must mean intelligence precedes life in that it’s the potential for inanimate matter to become matter. Where did this intelligence come from ? My argument is that it’s been there all along and preceded life. — kindred
t might "feel" coherent to you, but I bet you cannot give a coherent explanation of what it means. — Janus
Even ordinary time is not so easy to explain, but I don't think that helps your case. Is time just change, or is time a kind of "medium" in which change occurs? — Janus
Even ordinary time is not so easy to explain — Janus
Matter precedes intelligence — L'éléphant
Non-life =/= "nothing". Also, vacuum is not-a-thing (i.e. not-something aka "nothing") =/= nothing-ness (i.e. im-possibility aka "an impossible world"); "some-thing" is just a fluctuation / phase-state of not-a-thing (i.e. not-something) like order is a phase-state – dissipative structure – of disorder (i.e. chaos). Ergo the universe is only an expanding (cooling, or entropic) vacuum fluctuation that is/was random / acausal / non-intelligent.somethingcan’t come fromnothing — kindred
and without it the stick remains unchanged — punos
I can measure how much my stick with a joint moves, but it's not what allows for the movement itself. — punos
If time is change, and there were no time (no change), then what could possibly change for things to begin changing? — punos
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.Then how did matter become intelligent unless intelligence was there to begin with. — kindred
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
How can the stick "remain" if there is no time? — Janus
Do you mean it is not the measurement which allows for the movement? How do you know this. One interpretation of QM would have it otherwise. Which is not to say that it is only we that measure. — Janus
In that scenario time and change would not have begun. You seem to be still thinking in terms of there being something temporally prior to time, which would be a contradiction in terms. — Janus
Hi wayfarer thanks for your post. The question boils down to inevitability, possibility and actuality. Working in reverse we know that life (intelligence) has emerged which means it was possible. Now the last step is whether it was inevitable and since it was both possible and currently actual then it must follow that it is inevitable in an eternal universe. — kindred
Given a random distribution of [gravitating] matter, it is overwhelmingly more probable that it will form a black hole than a star or a cloud of dispersed gas. These considerations give a new slant, therefore, to the question of whether the Universe was created in an ordered or disordered state. If the initial state were chosen at random, it seems exceedingly probable that the big bang would have coughed out black holes rather than dispersed gases. The present arrangement of matter and energy, with matter spread thinly at relatively low density, in the form of stars and gas clouds would, apparently, only result from a very special choice of initial conditions. Roger Penrose has computed the odds against the observed Universe appearing by accident, given that the black-hole cosmos is so much more likely on a priori grounds. He estimates a figure of 10 raised to the power of 10 raised to the power of 30 [ie 10^10^30] to one...
...The upshot of these considerations is that the gravitational arrangement of the Universe is bafflingly regular and uniform*. There seems to be no obvious reason why the Universe did not go berserk, expanding in a chaotic and uncoordinated way, producing enormous black holes. Channeling the explosive violence into such a regular and organised pattern of motion seems like a miracle. Is it? Let us examine various responses to this mystery:
1. HIDDEN PRINCIPLE:
One could envisage a principle (or set of principles) which required, for example, the explosive vigour of the big bang to exactly match its gravitating power everywhere, so that the receding galaxies just escaped their own gravity...
Unfortunately, it cannot be that simple. If the Universe were exactly uniform, then no galaxies would have formed anyway. According to present understanding, it seems that the growth of galaxies from the primeval gases can only have occurred in the time available since the creation if the rudiments were present from the outset... If a fundamental principle does exist, it seems that it must allow just enough deviation from uniformity to permit the growth of galaxies, but not so much as to produce black holes. A delicate and complicated balancing act indeed!
2. DISSIPATION:
One possible explanation for the uniformity of the cosmic expansion is to suppose that the Universe started out with a highly non-uniform motion, but somehow dissipated the turbulence away...
...Two objections have been raised against this scenario. The first is that, however efficient the dissipation of primeval turbulence may be, it is always possible to find initial states which are so grossly distorted that a vestige will remain, in spite of the damping. At best one can only succeed in showing that the Universe must have belonged to a class of remarkable initial states.
The second objection is that all dissipation generates entropy. The violence of the primeval turbulence would be converted into enormous quantities of heat, far in excess of the observed quantity of the primeval heat radiation...
3. ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE:
Because a Universe full of black holes, or turbulent large scale motions is unlikely to be conducive to life, there is clearly room for an anthropic explanation of the uniformity of the Universe... One may envisage an [infinity] of universes covering every possible choice of initial expansion motion and distribution of matter. Only in the minute fraction which comes close to the arrangement in the observed Universe would life and observers form...
4. INFLATION:
Very recently (as of 1983) an entirely new approach to the cosmic uniformity problem has been suggested. It originates with the grand unified theories, and depends crucially on a number of assumptions about ultra-high energy matter which are debatable, and in any case hard to verify. Nevertheless it vividly demonstrates how an advance in fundamental physics can change our whole perspective of the origin of order in the Universe...
5. GOD:
If the grand unified theories fail, and if the anthropic argument is rejected, then the highly uniform nature of the Universe on the large scale might be advanced as evidence for a creative designer. It would, however, be negative evidence only. No one could be sure that future progress in our understanding of the physics of the early Universe might not uncover a perfectly satisfactory explanation for an orderly cosmos...
...There is, however, more to Nature than its mathematical laws and its complex order. A third ingredient requires explanation too: the so-called fundamental constants of Nature. It is in that province that we find the most surprising evidence for a grand design.
Let us look at a simple example due to Freeman Dyson. The nuclei of atoms are held together by the strong nuclear force whose origins lie with the quarks and gluons... If the force were weaker than it is, atomic nuclei would become unstable and disintegrate. [In deuterium, the link between the proton and the neutron] would be broken by quantum disruption if the nuclear force were only a few percent weaker. The effect would be dramatic. The sun, and most other stars, uses deuterium as a link in [the fusion reaction]. Remove deuterium and either the stars go out, or they [must] find a new nuclear pathway to generate their heat.
Equally dire consequences would ensue if the nuclear force were very slightly stronger. It would then be possible for two protons to overcome their mutual electric repulsion and stick together... In a world where the nuclear force was a few percent stronger, there would be virtually no hydrogen left over from the big bang. Although we do not know why the nuclear force has the strength it does, if it did not the Universe would be totally different in form. It is doubtful if life could exist.
What impresses many scientists is not so much the fact that alterations in the values of the fundamental constants would change the structure of the physical world, but that the observed structure is remarkably sensitive to such alterations. Only a minute shift in the strengths of the forces brings about a drastic change in the structure. Consider as another example the relative strengths of the electromagnetic and gravitational forces in matter. Both forces play an essential role in shaping the structure of stars...
...[Two types of stars, blue giants and red dwarfs] delimit a very narrow range of stellar masses. It so happens that the balance of forces inside stars is such that nearly all stars lie in this very narrow range between the blue giants and the red dwarfs. However, as pointed out by Brandon Carter, this happy circumstance is entirely the result of a remarkable numerical coincidence between the fundamental constants of Nature. An alteration in, say, the strengths of the gravitational force by a mere one part in 10 40 would be sufficient to throw out this numerical coincidence. In such a world, all stars would either be blue giants or red dwarfs. Stars like the sun would not exist, nor, one might argue, would any form of life that depends on solar-type stars for its sustenance...
...It is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of the Universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations of the numbers, has been rather carefully thought out. Such a conclusion can, of course, only be subjective. In the end, it boils down to a question of belief. Is it easier to believe in a cosmic designer than the multiplicity of universes necessary for the weak anthropic principle to work?... Perhaps future developments in science will lead to more direct evidence for other universes, but until then, the seemingly miraculous concurrence of numerical values that Nature has assigned to her fundamental constants must remain the most compelling evidence for an element of cosmic design — Paul Davies, God and the New Physics
Its just a device to explain one aspect of what i'm trying to explain. — punos
I can only know after the fact, not that i made it happen. — punos
So if time and change would not have never begun, then how does anything begin? — punos
Well. sorry, I'm not getting it at all. — Janus
I agree that you can't know you made it happen. But you can't know you didn't make it happen either. I don't have a problem with the idea of measurement (understood as being any kind of macro event) causing the collapse of the wave function. — Janus
The point is that you are trying to understand something from an intuitive temporal perspective that seems obvious to you, but that doesn't belong to that perspective, and is thus not coherent in terms of that perspective. — Janus
The probabilistic nature of QM is not an aspect of QM, but an aspect of our state of ignorance and uncertainty. — punos
Interesting, can you elaborate a little further on this issue of differential perspectives? What do you mean by doesn't belong to "that perspective"? — punos
That may be so, or it may not be so. How are we to assess the likelihood of either one or the other being the case? Better, I think, to admit our ignorance in such matters. — Janus
I mean that it seems unjustifiable to apply what seems obvious to us from within our temporally conditioned perspectives to what we imagine might lie altogether outside of temporality. — Janus
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. — kindred
What I bolded is what is being contested. It is not established fact. Until it is at least agreed upon (better if established as fact), there is no going on to "the rest."Patterner pretty much, the rest seems to be technicalities. If intelligence did happen then it had to happen, we’re just arguing if it happened before or not. That’s it. — kindred
Yes there is elegance in geometry, ratios and physical equations. In truth I don't think human cognition could work unless reality had inherent logic. Even the word logic comes from "Logos" -a primordial entity described by the ancients. — Benj96
According to Scheler, the modern worldview harbors a prejudice with respect to what counts as an experience or what is evidential. For the modern thinker, only those experiences that can be proven in a rational or logical manner are true or evidential experiences (GW V, 104). — SEP
I think the key issue here is repeatability. The capacity to reproduce a similitude of the experience (the observation), commonly known as the repeatability of an experiment, induces the conclusion that the observed phenomenon is understandable. — Metaphysician Undercover
I'm not sure we can demonstrate that humans have access to reality as such or what reality even is. Isn't reality just a word we use for our attempts to make sense of things in the world we experience? It isn't surprising that we 'find' inherent logic - patterns and regularities in our experience since we seem to be pattern-finding creatures, a product or our relentless sense making. — Tom Storm
Thanks for that quote, in the context of Cosmic Intelligence. I read Davies' book many years ago. And it had a lasting effect on my personal worldview, both scientific and philosophical. As a scientist, his use of "God" in the title wouldn't be taken seriously if he was referring to primitive & traditional concepts of world-creating deities. Yet, he admitted that "there are many mysteries about the natural world that would be readily explained by postulating a "natural Deity". Which seems to be the implication of the OP....The upshot of these considerations is that the gravitational arrangement of the Universe is bafflingly regular and uniform*. There seems to be no obvious reason why the Universe did not go berserk, expanding in a chaotic and uncoordinated way, producing enormous black holes. Channeling the explosive violence into such a regular and organised pattern of motion seems like a miracle. Is it? Let us examine various responses to this mystery: — Paul Davies, God and the New Physics
the universe is only an expanding (cooling, or entropic) vacuum fluctuation that is/was random / acausal / non-intelligent. — 180 Proof
It only "explains" the planck era of the universe which excludes "intelligence" (re: @kindred's OP).the universe is only an expanding (cooling, or entropic) vacuum fluctuation that is/was random / acausal / non-intelligent.
— 180 Proof
Would you say that explains everything? — Fire Ologist
You are mistaken (hasty generalization).Seems to me that is an explanation for everything.
Seems to me that is an explanation for everything.
You are mistaken (hasty generalization). — 180 Proof
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.