What else is there besides vacuum fluctuations? — Fire Ologist

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.

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

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?

My own bias is that given combinations of elements and circumstances, that life happens. Just how many different combinations of elements and circumstances no one knows. But more than one.

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

No. I'm saying it originates from us (which might be described as 'inside') like everything seemingly outside, we play a key role in its creation.

We have access to reality because we aren't separate from it. — Benj96

I wouldn't assume that this amounts to a capital R reality. It is the reality we know and to a great extent this reality varies with eras and cultures.

I'm not a proponent of an objective and infinite multiverse, instead I propose our individual subjective frameworks are the "proverbial multiverse." — Benj96

I think I'm saying something similar. Of course, being hit by a bus, or falling down a staircase presents us with a pretty unavoidable type of reality. :wink:

Is your point something like something exists before it exists? — tim wood

Not something but intelligence particularly. Since inanimate matter has the potential to become animate through abiogenesis and eventually intelligent I’d say that it preceded the universe. Intelligence then is a property of existence itself whatever existence may be.

Matter, substance and energy can be used interchangeably to define existence, irrespective of time they have existed eternally in tangent with intelligence which is one of its properties or facet.

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.

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

To simplify things I will equate most forms of life as a manifestation of intelligence even though they might not be intelligent themselves, they act in an intelligent manner such as bacteria or other single celled organisms or any other organism that is able to perpetuate itself through forms of replication.

Since this intelligence has manifested itself in nature I would say that it either preceded matter when it was non intelligent or non-alive or it co-existed with matter as potential for intelligence when it was non-living.

Therefore non-living things have the potential to be alive (and eventually intelligent through abiogenesis and evolution)

Perhaps the simplest and more uncontestable form of argument is to say that matter and intelligence exist in tangent. There’s certainly intelligence even in how the atom is structured, in how electrons go round the nucleus which in turn is glued together by the strong nuclear force that bind together neutrons and protons.

Ergo the universe is only an expanding (cooling, or entropic) vacuum fluctuation that is/was random / acausal / non-intelligent. — 180 Proof

Non-intelligent? Not so sure about that, because the universe contains intelligence it would make it an intelligent universe. This intelligence then is a property of the universe leading to both ordered (classical physics) and disordered (chaotic-random QM) systems.

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.

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

That’s not the question I’m asking but I appreciate your input. We know one thing for sure, that matter went from being inanimate to animate in this universe at least. The process by which it did so is called abiogenesis and scientists still don’t know the exact mechanisms or able to replicate how it happened how life came from non-life.

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.

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

Regardless of the improbabilities involved in yielding life from non-life the question is more fundamental than that and that is whether intelligence is a function or property of existence itself. We don’t really know why nature manifests intelligence but only that it does so which is perplexing to say the least.

The uniqueness of the revelation is not attributable to the individual, as a subjective uniqueness. It is attributed to the circumstances, or situation of the experience, as objective uniqueness. It is this objective uniqueness, the peculiarities of the circumstances, which makes the experience so powerful. It takes the reality of uniqueness from the subject and places it in the object so that the subject is no longer a unique individual, but a unique part of the universe. Instead of a subject, or self, we have a unique place and time.

I understand that people are sometimes said to share their insight, but I cannot say that I completely understand this idea. Can you explain how you understand "insight", if it does not involve a sort of uniqueness? I would understand it as a specific way of understanding the peculiarities of a particular set of circumstances. We can share our insight, but the insight relates to a particular situation.

... because the universe contains intelligence it would make it an intelligent universe — kindred

Compositional fallacy. :roll:

We know one thing for sure, that matter went from being inanimate to animate in this universe at least. — kindred

God breathed life into the dust, in the Biblical myth, which is at least an evocative allegory.

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

I'd say there is a lot of good evidence for one option and no good evidence that I know of for the other.

Do you think there is any value in considering the matter with an eye towards what is well evidenced and what isn't?

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

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.

I believe you are exhibiting what empirical mathematicians have complained about in the past and present -- that just because it is mathematics, it must be only theoretical, and any insinuation that we didn't arrive at this higher mathematical thinking without clinging to the tangibility of objects, or the empirical nature of reality, is blasphemous. That is the world of the purists. Either they fail to understand what physicalism is, or they, too, are searching for that bridge.

Well the universe is hardly non-intelligent humans excluded so I don’t see how it’s such a fallacy. There’s definitely an intelligence at play from the orderly motion of the planets to the elegant structure of atoms. Are you saying the universe is non-intelligent irrespective if there is intelligent life in it ?

You have yet to provide proof that the universe is non-intelligent to support your claim, for how would you account for the intelligent laws of physics that account for the orderly movement of the planets ?

It’s like looking at the mechanism of a clock, wouldn’t you say there’s an intelligence behind such a mechanism ? Same for the solar system galaxies atoms etc.

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

What is your account of the bridge from the physical to the phenomenal?

What is your account of the bridge from the physical to the phenomenal? — Patterner

I don't have one. I mentioned earlier that I favor physicalism.

Since intelligence is a non-physical thing could it exist independently of matter or is it just an embedded property of matter? If it’s an embedded property of matter then physicalism would be true and false if otherwise.

Since intelligence is a non-physical thing — kindred

In my view, intelligence is a physical thing.

In my view, intelligence is a physical thing — L'éléphant

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 ?

Are you saying the universe is non-intelligent irrespective if there is intelligent life in it ? — kindred

Yes. 'Intelligence' is an emergent feature of sufficiently complex living systems.

intelligent laws of physics

Wtf :roll: Now a genetic fallacy. They are not "intelligent", the physicists are. Physical laws are only invariant features – artifacts – of physical theories.

It’s like looking at the mechanism of a clock ...

Since "a clock" presupposes the universe, an analogy of "clock" to "universe" does not work.

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

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.

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.

I mentioned earlier that I favor physicalism. — L'éléphant

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.

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

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?

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

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.

Yes. 'Intelligence' is an emergent feature of sufficiently complex living systems. — 180 Proof

That’s like saying humans beings are not intelligent but only their brains are. This is a linguistic distraction at best from the argument that one of the properties/attributes of the universe is intelligence. I’m sure you don’t disagree with this. Although life itself may not be intelligent such as that of a bacteria it’s governed by intelligent processes, by not only which it emerged but operates. These intelligent processes are pervasive in the universe which would make the universe intelligent.

One thing i do know just for myself is that there is always in principle a way to know what is currently unknown. — punos

Right, there are many unknowns. Some of those unknowns could be unknowables, so I'm wary of the idea that there is always a way to know what is currently unknown. In those cases where there is something to be known about what currently is universally unknown special expertise is required. We won't do it from the armchair.

But my whole point is that there is no such thing as non-temporality, either before or after the Big Bang. — punos

If there is no temporality before the Big Bang then there is no "before the Big Bang".

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

How can intelligence be separate from matter to be able to supervene on it ? Are you claiming a diety?

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 ?

Repeating anthropomorphic fallacies does not make them any less fallacious. And yes, brains are intelligent, livers & gonads are not. :smirk:

If I experience a revelation or a "higher' insight, what is it about the experience that warrants it as knowledge? This is the question that proponents of "direct knowing" can never answer.

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

You could wipe out your awareness/consciousness by eliminating the sodium in your diet. Is this clear?

Would you accept the analogy of fish to a pond, although the pond is just a container just like the universe the life in it would make the pond alive ? You’re saying the pond is dead I say it’s alive because it contains life just like the body is a container of the brain it means the whole is intelligent (the human being)

In any case this is besides the point of my OP but a fruitful distraction at the same time.

Intelligence was inevitable as it actualised my main argument is that intelligence precedes the universe and is a quality or thing independent of it.