What is your 'idea of GOD'?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by hansda, Oct 12, 2013.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    This would hold true if evolution was not ongoing and had already reached it's ultimate "entropic" state. [Zero]
    Yet God would say that the universe was achieving intelligence yes? Even though he would think of it as an illusion.
    The Ultimate God perspective could be described as subjective unto the perceiver [God] ( as there is no ability for truth by consensus or perspective reasoning with "other" Gods)

    It is relative to us humans yes?
    and it is we humans that are questioning the existence/nature of the universes intelligence and not the universe doing the questioning.
    again this assumes that evolution is over and is not ongoing. [Would God know the outcome of evolution in it's entirety, when we are talking about a material universe [as God] and not a "religious" personification [ reflective duality].

    no problemo...thanks for the "intelligent" discussion...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,355
    I've cut to this, but be assured that I have read the rest.
    I do not consider intelligence to be separate, but part of. You have misunderstood me in this regard, and thus much of what you wrote here I found interesting but redundant.

    While I do consider us, our intelligence, our consciousness, to be an intrinsic part of the universe, of nature, being part of does not make the whole necessarily of the same, especially when the part is only meaningful when considered in isolation, and meaningless when considered of the whole.

    If something adheres to strict rules with no possibility of deviation, would you call it intelligent?
    THIS is the universe.
    But under that same perspective, the same rules without deviation applied to a subset of the whole can lead to something that considers itself to be intelligent.
    So one considers what it maybe that leads a part to consider itself intelligent, and can this applied to the whole...
    Well, the part is not aware, or can not act as though, it is merely a deterministic/random pattern of activity (that the whole is) and its claim to intelligence is due to the lack of such awareness. I.e. It is only a relative position, and not applicable to that which is and can only ever be deterministic/random etc.

    Naturally this assumes that one holds the universe to be such, which I do in the absence of a more rational explanation.

    Thus it is wrong for you to think that I consider intelligence to be separate - admittedly my choice of example (and in a box) was poor in this regard but I happily moved on to your example to the same effect.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,355
    And I would have no problem with that at all.
    I do understand your view here, but one can only meaningfully talk of the whole as it relates to that which it interacts with as a whole. We refer to a person (the being as a whole) as intelligent because it is the person that interacts, as a whole.
    We do not interact with the universe as a whole. God may. But when he does he sees a purely mechanistic thing, obeying rules.
    So I understand you considering the universe as intelligent. I find that view to be meaningless.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,355
    No, it would hold for the universe in any and every state, or maybe you're picturing god merely looking at a bubble, watching us as time passes etc? Even with such a view, if at T=0 the universe is deterministic/random then it will be so at any subsequent time. One merely needs to be aware of the fact and see it for what it is. The entropic state of the universe is merely an indicator of what the time is, nothing more.
    He might say that parts of the universe was achieving what they themselves considered to be intelligence, but it is not intelligence. Individual elements within would be intelligent in reference to other elements within. But the universe itself, as a whole, would remain unintelligent. Intelligence is an outward portrayal of action and reaction according to stimuli, a pattern of activity. The universe does not have that. And the insides can not act as a reference point for such outward perspectives.
    See above.
    It does not assume that evolution is over, only that if the universe is deterministic/random then it remains so.
    As for what god would know, that would depend on what properties you attribute to god (e.g. Omnipotence etc).
    Im sure there's a witty reply somewhere in there about it just being an illusion!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2013
  8. Ogdon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    18
    Yes, it does.
     
  9. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Technically, it is only the brain of a human that is intelligent. Your fingers and toes aren't intelligent. Your nose isn't intelligent.

    Saying humans are intelligent is correct, but that's only because we don't view humans as disparate parts. There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to do the same for the universe. Does it seem to you that our intelligence represents the will of the universe? That it in any significant way affects the universe? Why should intelligence be an attribute of the universe instead of merely something that happens within it, sort of like how we view things that happen within ourselves but do not define us?
     
  10. Ogdon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    18
    Indeed it does. You see, intelligence is distributed.
     
  11. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,355
    Intelligence can indeed be distributed, but the existence of intelligent elements does not indicate in and of itself an overall intelligence that is distributed.
     
  12. Ogdon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    18
    Intelligence is also intelligent.
     
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Unless one includes the deviation available by life forms, especially those with the greatest amount of freedom.
    "Since when have humans ever truly followed the rules?"
     
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    There is reason to believe that a human being born with out the ability to express his intelligence, ie. no arms, legs, mouth, or facial expression or ideally borne into a comatose state, that that person may have the potential to be intelligent but is frustrated from being so.

    The human intelligence functions in the use of mental or virtual hands, virtual legs, etc visualizing action and activity utilizing those aspects. With out those visualization attributes or skills could intelligence find expression or would the intelligence remain only a potential?

    Can a table leg be deemed an intelligence in isolation of the table? [ when it requires the table to define the leg as a leg of the table?]

    Do we humans identify ourselves as participants of this universe first before identifying ourselves as Earth participants/dwellers?
    Could the universe consider itself to be separate from humanity?
    Personally I find it absurd to think that it may...
     
  15. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    Intelligence is actual (not just potential) even without the ability to express it. Are you only intelligent when talking or typing?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The brain is where our intelligence comes from and not our hands/feet/mouth.
     
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    @ sarkus:
    To me this whole question is relatively absurd. As, to me, there is no question but bear with me if you can as I attempt to explain why.

    If on a table before you there were two objects.
    1] An incredibly sophisticated micro processor "mother" board of an alien [E.T.] computer system.
    2] A human child of 6 months age.
    Ok, you make a comparison between the two objects regarding the intelligence of their creator.
    [Remember the alien creator may have been a 6 month child it's self at some stage]

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I would imagine that scientists world wide would strongly indicate that the "motherboard" was created by a sophisticated intelligence.
    yet would they say the same thing for something so much more sophisticated than a mother board? that being an infant child?
    That also happens to share the same creator of the alien motherboards creator?

    To me the comparison is absurdly dialectic. yet very real.

    A baby's creator [blind evolution] is deemed dumb yet the relatively inferior "technology" creator is deemed to be intelligent. [also a product of "blind" evolution]


    Absurd..yes?

    To me this describes well, the nature of the dualistic schizm involved, regarding human egocentricity and narcissism as mentioned earlier..
     
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    A [edit: living] brain in a bottle is not intelligent, void of any method of expression. nor ability to demonstrate with evidence that it is so. IMO
    The problem is : If you believe it is [brain in a bottle] then this would carry forward to believing that the universe is innately intelligent as well would it not?
    Our intelligence is utterly dependent upon the universe being there for us to act and react upon. For with out a universe how could we consider ourselves to be intelligent? [human being in a bottle]
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2013
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    this is an interesting comment.. can you explain the distinction? [yeah I know this particular angle/issue is not easy to put in words..]
     
  19. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    A dead brain (in a bottle) isn't intelligent. A working brain is. Steven Hawkins is intelligent. Without his eyes it would largely go unfulfilled. Helen Keller was intelligent.

    I think that your religious views are set and every argument is going to favor that view because logic is not working in your favor here

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    with out his body his brain would be indeed dead... also..unless you wish to suggest that a living brain in a bottle has some sort of way to be intelligent or even conscious for that matter [ as we are not conscious of our brains generally speaking. The brain is not conscious of itself sort of thingo]

    uhm... what religious views are you talking about?
    seriously..
    are you being a touch religio-phobic by chance...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    No, regarding being a touch "religio-phobic" ...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Shut your eye's and you still have consciousness. Of course you need for it to be alive and have blood flowing to it. You are the one who came up with the bottle concept.

    Helen Keller was as close to that as is humanly possible. She was intelligent.

    The point is that it's the person (through the brain and not the fingers) that has the intelligence and not the universe.
     
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    actually it is not worth going into too deeply as some of what you are raising is a large can or worms.
    eg. does a brain only determine identity...some would have thought the heart does that, some believe anything that carries a complete DNA set does...... etc
    so unless you want to get into a big long discussion I am not really prepared to start on it.
    Yeah I did come up with the bottle concept and possibly live to regret doing so...[chuckle]
    I note you have not been able to support your "religio-phobic" comment....if you are not prepared to support it, could you retract please...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    now I am being religio -phobic about religio-phobia! sheesh!

    "Oh no... oh no!... there is a religio-phobic atheist under my bed!!!"
     
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    so..what are you conscious of?... certainly not your brain...?
    maybe I should have qualified my scenario better. As Darth Vader said to me one day "You presume too much!"
    "A brain in a bottle is referring to a living brain, not a brain with eyes, or any other sensory apparatus beyond the brain itself [ eyes, ears, taste, touch etc. ]"

    and yes.. no spinal column, skull, or musculature.
    you know...'dis t'ing...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    .

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page