What is your 'idea of GOD'?

nor is there evidence of intelligence in the primary ingredient in a brain either [say water]

Again it may very well be a question of scale.. yet you choose to ignore that point. why?

Indeed both are correct however one may be more plausible or more probable than the other.
Example:
It is highly unlikely that intelligence will ever be discovered in a single rock as with a neuron, however when considering an effective infinite number of interconnected rocks, energy and other ingredients the chance are actually quite high. Volition however is another thing all together.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ok I have tried to notate my concerns.

Now ...
can I throw the dish water out with the baby....?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks:
I mentioned procreation because evolution didn't create us, so if you want to talk about the intelligence of what created those things it seemed relevant to talk about procreation. And if you wanted to consider evolution as being the creator then "procreation" could be taken as just a placeholder for the same, as it is the final step so to speak.

Evolution is merely a byproduct of creatures adapting through whatever mechanisms, and subsequently being fit or not for the environment. It is not the method of creation but the path we have taken through subsequent generations of creation.
There is no more intelligence in evolution than there is in the path a river takes through an environment.

So it is absurd, as you asked? Well, yes if you view evolution as a creating force, as you're not comparing apples with apples between that understanding of evolution, and the creation of a motherboard.
But if you understand evolution not as a creating force but as merely a description of the journey then it is not absurd.

So a question: you think evolution is intelligent, so do you also think that a flow of water, such as a river, is intelligent (not for the fish or life that may dwell within it, but the flow itself)?


And for the other part, yes they are ultimately all the result of evolution, but one (the motherboard) requires an emergent property that forms out of the level of complexity, that evolution itself gave rise to.
The emergent property has no meaning at lower levels.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I guess what I am exploring could be carelessly summed up as follows:

The universe as a complete entity [ closed system ] has been, due to it's inter-connectedness of all things, [via the universal constant ] evolving for all of it's existence. As a part of that evolution intelligent life [by our definition] has been generated, created or other wise evolved. The influences that generated that evolution of intelligence still exist as a part of the universe as a whole, therefore one could say, as a human that the universe is in the least "as intelligent" as what it has generated of itself or as a part of itself and continues to offer ongoing support in the form of "evolutionary influences" to maintain and further evolve the intelligence it created.

Suffice to say that the sustainable existence of the universe is a goal unto itself and thus seeks "blindly" or "automatically" or "innately" to sustain it's own existence in a sustainable fashion and do so intelligently.

On that basis and with the evidence that surrounds us, confirming an incredible intelligence at work [ human DNA, life etc ] one could tentatively conclude that the universe as a whole is indeed innately and intrinsically intelligent.

Also it must be realized that we humans do not actually create anything but merely imitate what we observe and manipulate accordingly. Our intelligence is devoted to imitating and making use of what we see within ourselves and around us and not a lot more...we seek to be as intelligent, by way of imitation, as that which inspires us.

The inspiration provided by the universe is by far superior to that which is inspired.

This apparent intelligence does not equate with anything of a religio-phobic nature and is merely a natural outcome of natural forces working over billions of years. However it is easy to see why religious or spiritual thought has dominated mankind historically and most probably always will.

 

in the context of an immense universe with an effective infinite number of rivers flowing it would have to be if one considers the universe [as a whole] to be intrinsically or innately intelligent. Just one more "neuron-ic" activity to add to the list of an infinite number of activities, that when combined lead to intelligent outcomes.

 

This is just mumbo-jumbo. The universe has no "goal". It just is. There is no universal intelligence due to a "universal constant". The speed of light somehow means that everything in the universe is connected to everything else and therefore there is universal intelligence?

I would call it "junk" science but it's not even that. That is no evidence, no logic, nothing. This is just science fiction imagination. There is nothing intellectual going on with this yarn.

The "logic" that is being used to string all this together is just made up. There is no evidence, no basis and there is not even a plausible suggestion as to how it would work.

It's simply stated that if you get enough immaterial structure that eventually it has to be intelligent because the universe is a closed system, because the creator has to be at least as intelligent as the created, and other "rules" made to sound "logical"! "Human's only imitate" Where do you come up with this stuff?

In the end it's stated that this has nothing to do with religion and that it's just a natural process but it could easily be mistaken for religion. Please!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As I said before, this is either a religious or a science-fiction fueled delusion.

 

never heard of the universal constant of gravity have you?
Never considered how inertia works etc... or how we as humans share the same exact universal constancy of gravity although seemingly freestanding...
You believe that the only constant is light speed invariance is that it... ?

You are connected to everything and everything is connected to you... get over it...

no you wouldn't given your narrow view on rocks and things... [ chuckle ] and besides this is philosophy not science, the science bit comes later....

gravitational constancy universally tells it all go figure why you can't understand that..and I suppose you think the uniformity of cosmic metric expansion, universally, happens by chance as well?

humans only imitate stuff.. yep.... humans only imitate stuff. Name one thing humans have done that is not an imitation of something that has inspired them? A challenge ...go on you can do it man!

but wait... there's more....

who cares what you think if it's not supported...
and I got a baby sitting on a table giggling at a mother board donated by an alien... as evidence...all the evidence I need in fact....sci fiction.. bah!...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No, it hasn't.
Your are equivocating evolution with mere change.
The universe, as a closed system, is invariant, other than the form of its elements, and a mere change of form does not constitute evolution.
The evolution has not gone through a change in environment, a selection process for survival etc.
It is thus meaningless to consider that it has in any way evolved with the same meaning of the word as for human evolution.

Again, not so, as being a closed system there is no means of it being referenced, nor can it anything other than just a continual mass of billiard balls bouncing around a table.
At least we could say that there are elements within the universe that are intelligent.

Assigning a goal to the universe is akin to assigning one to a rock: meaningless anthropomorphism.

You seem to be selecting the bases to fit the conclusion.
Further I do not consider human DNA not to be, in and of itself, intelligent.
It is merely a chain of molecules.
That it gives rise to levels of complexity from which emerge intelligence is a different matter, but I do not consider emergent properties to be meaningfully applicable to levels below that in which it arises.

So where in the non-human world is a pulley to be observed?
But yes, we do not create as it is all just reshaping what is already within the universe (it being a closed system), but we do create ideas, concepts that we then shape into material existence - and not all is mere imitation (e.g. the pulley).

Is there a point here? Why bring the issue of inspiration into the matter?

You have used the term "religio-phobic" a number of times now yet it remains an unsupported assertion. What exactly in my (and others') words do you find religio-phobic?

As for whether or not it is easy to see why spiritual thought has dominated... it is a separate matter than the one under discussion, and not one I think many would actually question.

 

Sarkus, you believe in a fully deterministic universe where freewill is non-existent due to all thing being subject to some sort of external or internal condition of some kind... yes?
How can you then say:

are you alluding to freewill with the above....shame on you!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Also life as we know it must have magically appeared if as you say the universe has not been constantly evolving [change = evolution IMO] ...are you alluding to some sort of divine intervention ?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Reality... it is real.

How do you know it simply changes and does not evolve?

 

Fully deterministic? No.

No, I am not alluding to freewill with the above... and shame on you for concluding such!
Freewill, as I consider it philosophically, is merely a perception at one level of activity resulting from vastly incomplete understanding of the conditions and interactions of the lower level of activity.

And I can say what i did because, to me, there is a difference between imitating what already exists and being the cause for what subsequently exists. It is through us, through the complexity of interactions that make us up, that concept can be created that are not mere imitation.

No, you misunderstand.
And again shame on you for suggesting, or even possibly concluding such!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Evolution is applicable to aspects of the universe, i.e. to individual components within.
The universe as a whole has not evolved - it has merely changed.
The same way that an individual biological human body does not evolve as it grows older... it merely changes. Sure, our thinking may evolve, but for the purposes of this analogy I am talking merely biological. There is a difference between mere change (and in the case of a human body, decay) and evolution.
Evolution is the process of continual adaptation, with those adaptions either being fit or not for the environment in which they find themselves.
It is meaningless to talk of such with regard the very environment itself, as it, as a whole, has no environment in which to adapt and by which to be judged fit.

 

Thanks for the tautology.

Because it is understood to be a closed system.
Individual closed systems can not evolve.
To evolve it must interact with the selecting environment.
For that environment to select based on the change/evolution within the system it must interact with the internal aspects of that system.
And if that happens then the system could not be deemed to be closed.

So either the assumption that the system is closed is wrong (and in the case of the universe this would mean that science becomes meaningless), or that the closed system can not evolve.

 

It really is a matter of scale. If we look at the universe as a whole, we see this vast, interconnected thing which is moving on it's own and creating highly complex mathematical patterns. How anyone can see that as dead and stupid is beyond me.

I see volition. It seems to me to have a will to life, or activity in general.

 

A fractal can create complex mathematical patterns based on the interations of a simple equation in a computer and in nature. Does that mean it is intelligent? No..As usual the theists underestimate the capabilities of a energetic self-complexifying universe.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The computer didn't build and program itself in a vacuum though, the universe did. And the computer can't produce patterns so complex that they are self aware, the universe does.

 

If an object appeared on earth that could move on it's own and produce higly complex mathematical patterns, we would say it was alien intelligence, but the universe does it and we say it's stupid.

 

Moving the goalposts? All you said was move on its own and create complex mathematical patterns. A robotic computer could do that. Doesn't mean its intelligent.

 

Agrees!
Typical of the fragile human ego...a form of inferiority complex, that drives us to ultimately become comparable, competitive and eventually exceed, the universes intelligence that we attempt to imitate or emulate.
It could be suggested that the only reason mankind has sought to personify the universe in the form of a personal God(s) was to help placate the intense fear [paranoia] associated with being confronted with such an awesome intellect. Thereby building a "courageous" relationship with "something" that resides both with in and with out. [self]

 

Yes, I must admit I do have difficulty understanding how you have arrived at such a narrow view of things like evolution [ organic only], life/death/existence, values etc...
I guess this highlights for me at least the major differences between a dualistic approach and an "overview" or global approach.
To me all change is evolution from inception, presuming a theoretical Big bang to to day and on to the future. This is not isolated on an individual organism by organism basis but on a collective universal basis, where by the individual is a part of that collective.

"It only requires one universal constant to bring order from chaos" - a process of evolution yes?

If one organism evolves then so too must all organisms. [ simultaneously ]

Of course this point of view flies in the face of "popular" science's ideas of FTL info transfer limitations, yet so too does quantum entanglement. To conceive of a universe where all objects [including humans] are entangled through the instantaneous-ness of "zero dimensional" space is considered preposterous yet it has already been solidly proven with in the scientific field of QM. [although currently limited in scale]
"Spooky action at a distance" Einstein once complained and so he should given that it (quantum entanglement) thoroughly destroys the idea of relative time at any given t=0 and provides a basis and premise for unification of the universe physically and theoretically via the existence of absolute time via zero dimensionalism [zero space] as mentioned earlier with Quantum Entanglement.. [ Possibly a mix of Newton/Minkowski/Einstein or Lorentz space time.]

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

so is it fully deterministic or not? [regardless of ignorance] according to your opinion..

I have NOT suggested that it is. I have suggested that it is the product of intelligence. [universal] And a small part of what makes that intelligence intelligent.
DNA is evidence of intelligence and DNA is not intelligent on it's own.

[Actually this is an area of research for me, for I am guessing that the genome is in fact quite intelligent, an intelligence yet to be discovered by science]

 

We can see how one would base their view of "evolution" on biological entities since there is a whole field of science (and evidence) for that view.

On what do you base your view of evolution (QQ)? How is all change evolution? How do you get from "everything in the universe it connected" to "universal intelligence"?

Two intelligent people "connected" to the universe via gravity are still just two organisms with intelligence. There is no mechanism imparting intelligence to the universe (in this example).

What is the mechanism for universal intelligence and what it the receptor for this intelligence?

Is this something that you believe based on faith, evidence, wishing, reading too many sci-fi books?