Lots of "somethings": fields, excitations, density patterns, nucleogenesis, black holes ... you & I, etc. This universe has dynamic contents whereas (possibly) most other universes do not.What else is there besides vacuum fluctuations? — Fire Ologist
I'm not 180 but I'll bite. The first granted because it appears to have happened, and more than once. The second granted same reason. Is your point something like something exists before it exists?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? — kindred
Yes but the assumption made here is that reality is "outside" and therefore we are "projecting" our sense of logic or elegance onto it — Benj96
We have access to reality because we aren't separate from it. — Benj96
I'm not a proponent of an objective and infinite multiverse, instead I propose our individual subjective frameworks are the "proverbial multiverse." — Benj96
Is your point something like something exists before it exists? — tim wood
Then how did matter become intelligent unless intelligence was there to begin with.
— kindred
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.
The subjective experience is a hot button because 'no' philosophical accounts have given us the bridge from the physical to the phenomenal. The critics of consciousness and subjective experience had raised an unconscionable objection against the theories of perception that sort of 'skip' the step on when this -- this consciousness -- develops from physical bodies.
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
Ergo the universe is only an expanding (cooling, or entropic) vacuum fluctuation that is/was random / acausal / non-intelligent. — 180 Proof
Life could simply not have arisen, and it would have been far easier in terms of explanation if it hadn’t yet it did, which remains a mystery. — kindred
Well life exists on one planet in the universe and there is good reason to think that life doesn't exist in vastly more places than it does, and that really doesn't seem all that mysterious to me. I think you might find it a lot less mysterious with some study. — wonderer1
In any case, the upshot of all of this is that the notion that the universe exists as it does 'because of chance' holds no water. — Wayfarer
The question is if intelligence is a property of matter or a thing in itself (which exists of its own) and acts on matter to make it come to life which is what actually happened as we are such intelligence. The other question is whether intelligence preceded the universe or even matter and is a fundamental function of existence itself. — kindred
Conceptualization is still part of our mental activity. And mental activity is neuronal. And we know that's physical. But I think you mean to say, there is no 'picture' of mathematical concepts, but just concepts. So how did we come up with mathematical concepts.Curiously, physics itself is largely mathematical in nature. The standard model of particle physics is understood in purely mathematical terms. But mathematics itself is not physical, but conceptual. How would you account for that? — Wayfarer
What is your account of the bridge from the physical to the phenomenal?The subjective experience is a hot button because 'no' philosophical accounts have given us the bridge from the physical to the phenomenal. The critics of consciousness and subjective experience had raised an unconscionable objection against the theories of perception that sort of 'skip' the step on when this -- this consciousness -- develops from physical bodies.
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
I don't have one. I mentioned earlier that I favor physicalism.What is your account of the bridge from the physical to the phenomenal? — Patterner
In my view, intelligence is a physical thing.Since intelligence is a non-physical thing — kindred
In my view, intelligence is a physical thing — L'éléphant
Yes. 'Intelligence' is an emergent feature of sufficiently complex living systems.Are you saying the universe is non-intelligent irrespective if there is intelligent life in it ? — kindred
Wtf :roll: Now a genetic fallacy. They are not "intelligent", the physicists are. Physical laws are only invariant features – artifacts – of physical theories.intelligent laws of physics
Since "a clock" presupposes the universe, an analogy of "clock" to "universe" does not work.It’s like looking at the mechanism of a clock ...
It's because you have the ordinary observation of reality. So, to you, if you can't see the atoms, atoms don't exist. Only tables and chairs exist.Is it not an attribute or property of a physical thing ? How can intelligence be a tangible thing that can be touched? How would you support your assertion if that’s the case ? — kindred
Are there different physicalist accounts, and you don't know which seems most likely? I'm not being confrontational. I'm asking. No, I don't believe physicalism is the answer. But I haven't heard of a physicalist account of the bridge. I hear of different physical structures and events added to the mix, but not of how the physical has the subjective experience of itself, rather than just taking place "in the dark." I thought maybe you had heard of a theory that had leptons in a central role.I mentioned earlier that I favor physicalism. — L'éléphant
I don't think I agree that physics is mathematical in nature. I think many aspects of it can be described mathematically. Is it the same thing?Curiously, physics itself is largely mathematical in nature. The standard model of particle physics is understood in purely mathematical terms. But mathematics itself is not physical, but conceptual. How would you account for that? — Wayfarer
lol. You haven't heard of the physicalist account of the bridge because they don't say there is one! That's my point. Physicalism denies that there is the physical, then there's the other that's non-physical. Everything supervenes on the physical.But I haven't heard of a physicalist account of the bridge. I hear of different physical structures and events added to the mix, but not of how the physical has the subjective experience of itself, rather than just taking place "in the dark." I thought maybe you had heard of a theory that had leptons in a central role. — Patterner
Yes. 'Intelligence' is an emergent feature of sufficiently complex living systems. — 180 Proof
One thing i do know just for myself is that there is always in principle a way to know what is currently unknown. — punos
But my whole point is that there is no such thing as non-temporality, either before or after the Big Bang. — punos
Intelligence supervenes on the physical. That's the metaphysical assertion that I am claiming. Without the physical reality, there would be no morality, no subjective experience, no concepts of anything. — L'éléphant
You could wipe out your awareness/consciousness by eliminating the sodium in your diet. Is this clear?If intelligence is distinct from the physical how can the non-physical affect the physical to give rise to life or other intelligent processes that occur in matter ? — 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.