Was intelligence in the universe pre-existing?
As we know the universe has at least one form of intelligent life, us, human beings although other creatures on earth exhibit intelligence too such as chimps, dolphins, crows etc.
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.
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.
Comments (204)
If God made the universe, yes. (Where he lived before he made the universe is anybody's guess.)
Otherwise, no: intelligence had to wait until a brain evolved someplace. Maybe not only here; maybe many intelligent entities have been and are scattered across the galaxies. Odds are, we'll never meet one to compare IQ's.
Here is my response to a similar claim you made in the "God" discussion.
Quoting T Clark
Quoting kindred
Insofar as "before" is a synonym for without in this context, the above amounts to asking whether 'walking happened without legs' or 'vision without eyes' or 'life without mass' or 'minds without bodies' or 'patterns without primordial symmetry-breaking' ... wtf :roll:
That's presumably not the definition operative the OP..
Perhaps the OP could clear this up.
Intelligent Beings Without Brains Are Abundant In NatureA Growing Scientific Consensus
Quoting Andréa Morris (Forbes)
Is that opinion just a wild guess, or do you believe you can rationally justify it?
Here's my opinion. There are two broad possibilities:
1) Intelligence (which entails a mind) just happens to exist, with neither reason nor cause.
2) Intelligence developed naturally, and gradually, at least once over billions of years in a vast universe.
Possibility 2 seems more plausible. The development of intelligence on any specific planet is very low probability, but the number of planets in the universe is so enormously large that it is a near certainty to occur at least once.
I believe I can rationally justify it. Intelligence as we know exists throughout nature. There are certainly phenomena in nature which exhibit intelligence by design such as photosynthesis although Im not making the claim for an intelligent designer Im simply claiming that nature has managed to create wonders which show some kind of intelligence in action. I do not believe this to be blind luck but intelligence.
The question is both why and how and although we cant yet explain or at least demonstrate how life came from non-life Im not invoking god of the gaps to explain it. Im merely invoking a pre-existing intelligence which was able to self organise, replicate, reproduce and exhibit life.
Quoting bert1
Theres nothing wrong with that definition so Im happy to use it.
Quoting T Clark
Thanks for pointing it out and that post I made there was the inspiration behind this topic. Regarding abiogenesis it seems to me to provide the argument that Im looking for when it comes to intelligence being pre-existing and preceding the Big Bang. We clearly see in nature signs of intelligence in almost every creature in the way they have carved niches and adapted to their environments respectively through natural selection even trees and plants through the photosynthesis exhibit a mechanism that even man is not yet able to replicate with the level of efficiency that nature naturally does.
The universe could have easily not yielded life or intelligence yet we see it manifest in this planet in many forms and there are two possibilities as either intelligence in this post big bang world has emerged for the first time or it has been around before it and the evidence suggests to me that you cant just introduce intelligence or life into the universe without precedence, it must have always been around not just because life and intelligence is special but because the step from inanimate matter to organic life is just to big to have happened by chance alone and would imply a pre-existing intelligence.
I cant prove that Im merely hypothesising that intelligence probably existed prior to the Big Bang and its not the first time life or intelligence has emerged post big bang but that it probably has emerged before at least if you believe in a cyclical universe but even if this was the first universe created without precedence then it would mean intelligence in this world has no precedence and its the first time it has manifested through creation. This is hard to accept and its easier it assume that it has always existed or at least existed prior than to assume its the first time it has manifest.
Have you ever studied the evidence for biological evolution, and the rather Rube Goldberg like mechanism that have often resulted from biological evolution? (Consider the perception thread for an example of the consequences of such Rube Goldberg like 'design'.)
In any case, do you have an argument against abiogenesis that amounts to more than an argument from incredulity? Can you show your math as to how you have calculated the probability of abiogenesis occurring anywhere in the universe?
Sounds like an implicit false dichotomy: blind luck vs intelligent design. The correct comparison would be: undirected natural selection vs intelligent design.
Quoting kindred
You have a regress problem: you're accounting for the "intelligence" of life by assuming another intelligence exists. Why doesn't the same logic apply to that prior (non-bioligical life) intelligence? Do you assume it just happens to exist uncaused?
How is this MORE plausible than my hypothesis: life (which you suggest entails intelligence) develops naturally and gradually over billions of years - iff some narrow set of conditions existed at key points of its development?
Hi wonderer1, thanks for your input, youve made a good point. The chance of abiogenesis happening is obviously 1 as life did in fact emerge from non-life. Scientists so far are unable to reproduce experimentally how this occurred however Im not basing my argument around this non-reproducibility Im making the rather bold claim that intelligence is an inherent part of nature whether this is existed just post big bang is debatable and that in fact it has existed before.
Scientists don't have labs the size of the universe or grants lasting billions of years. In any case, supposing scientists did find a highly detailed and plausible account by which abiognesis might have occurred on Earth, I don't know how it could be shown that such an account is the correct account.
Quoting kindred
Do you think intelligence can exist sans an infomation processing substrate for intelligence to supervene upon? (E.g. a brain.)
If so, why?
If not, what would have served as such an information processing substrate before the big bang? (BTW, it is questionable whether "before the big bang" meaningfully refers to anything. It may well be similar to "north of the North pole.")
Sure thats a nice hypothesis I like it however it implies that life could still have existed pre-big bang if those conditions were somehow met during a pre big bang world which would support my argument that not only is intelligence inevitable but that its an inherent feature of the universe pre or post big bang.
This not only means that intelligence/life emerges inevitably from non-life but that its a manifestation of a pre-existing intelligence. Strong claim indeed.
What we do know is that intelligence exists in some type of nervous system i.e. organic brains. Its not to far fetched or impossible for such intelligence or information processing to occur through other processes, even current primitive AI is capable of decision making as long as goals are provided to it and were barely scratching the surface of AI in terms of capability and its not to impossible to imagine an AI, 200 years from now to be self directed in terms of goal setting which would not only exhibit sentience but consciousness (perhaps).
The question is whether such an intelligence could come about on its own unaided by human intelligence and I dont see why not. We dont really know what nature is capable off.
"Could have" = it's logically possible, not that there's any good reasons to believe it to be the case that life existed before the big bang. We know nothing about the pre-big bang conditions, but we know some of the conditions necessary for life to arise in our universe, and there's no reason to believe those conditions existed prior to the big bang.
Your "strong claim" is a non-sequitur. My analysis only implies that life is inevitable (but rare) in this universe. You've still given no reason to think it's a "manifestation of pre-existing intelligence" - you seem to be treating the bare possibility that life MAY HAVE existed prior to the big bang as a strong reason to believe it was actually the case.
Even if you call 'a kind of biomechanics' intelligence and growth in favourable conditions decision-making (which definitions are not widely shared), that clever pre-universe mold would have needed a substrate on which to live and grow and make decisions about.
I agree with your assertion that intelligence predates the Big Bang. This premise seems necessary, as without it, the occurrence of a Big Bang (especially one that leads to the intricate complexity we observe in our universe) would be impossible.
The key point i'd emphasize is that this primordial intelligence represents the most fundamental form of intelligence possible. It may possess consciousness without self-awareness, or perhaps lack consciousness entirely. However, this distinction doesn't diminish its ultimate potential.
To elaborate further, this rudimentary intelligence evolves and becomes more sophisticated through the process of emergence and complexification. Each new level of emergence represents a higher order of intelligence. The progression can be observed across various scales as follows:
1. Quantum intelligence
2. Atomic intelligence
3. Stellar intelligence
4. Molecular intelligence
5. Cellular intelligence
6. Social intelligence
7. Technological intelligence
8. And beyond
These stages represent emergent levels of intelligence, with each subsequent level demonstrating greater capabilities than its predecessor. This hierarchical development illustrates the ongoing evolution and complexification of intelligence throughout the cosmos.
A form of consistency or coherence that binds all things together -meaning that nature is "accessible" in a rational capacity. That deductions and inferences as well as predictions can be consistently made by contemplating it.
In other words, does it make sense to conceive of 'inteligence in the universe without the universe existing' (i.e. disembodied agency)? :roll:
No, I don't think so.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/931639
In [I]Feeling & Knowing: Making Minds Conscious[/I], Antonio Damasio has a bit to say about this.
I would claim that something has always existed, as existence is a brute fact. The question I ask whether prior to the Big Bang and this universe if there has been intelligence in it. Physics or the laws of physics might have been different prior to the Big Bang, how different we do not know, yet it has yielded a largely ordered and organised universe post big bang. This means one of two things either this intelligence has precedence or it does not. Im of the belief that if the post big bang world contains this type of intelligence (from the alignment of the planets to life itself) then its not unlikely that the pre-big bang world had similar levels of self-organising intelligence in it.
What I am not saying is just because us as human beings are able to formulate mathematical formulas modelling reality does not mean that reality itself is not intelligent but rather our own intelligence is a by product of intelligence built in the universe and not only was intelligence inevitable but that it has always existed from the beautiful mathematical and physical formulas that govern the motion of macro-micro bodies from electrons to planets etc.
I find this intelligence obviously fascinating by that I dont quite mean that matter is alive but by the process of abiogenesis its able to transition from non-organic life to an organic one that can replicate reproduce and even think.
The physical laws that govern even matter (otherwise it would fall apart) making it bind and be solid (or transition to other phases based on temperature) means that this intelligence is not merely confined to minds but its built into the fabric of the universe and reality which doesnt just exhibit a certain elegance to it but beauty as well, leads me to believe that it couldnt just have existed post-big bang. Sure the pre-big-bang universe might have had different laws altogether but they still would have exhibited the same level of intelligence whatever that type of universe looked like.
So I believe that intelligence (order, change, adaptability) has always existed in one form or another regardless of the current iteration of the universe.
Your view is that intelligence evolves with the progress of the universe. My belief is that intelligence from inception has no such ceilings. Its products might show different levels of intelligence such as the difference between a fish and a human being but intelligence itself governing the universe has no such limits such as is confined to each different creature.
Quoting Benj96
I agree. Theres 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.
Im neither animist or panpsychist but i do believe that intelligence is an inherent part of existence otherwise there would be no motion of the planets, no life and fundamentally nothingness.
Let me ask you this do you think an ant colony is intelligent? in a way its just a more highly evolved self-organising process or would you say that its life and youre referring to non-organic life processes ?
If so then why would non-life lead to life? (Abiogenesis) or put more simply how do you get intelligence from non-intelligence? You cant.
No, I minimize judgments based on my anthropomorphic bias as much as possible.
There is no "why" for "non-life" processes.
We do not know how yet. Scientists are still working to crack that nut.
How do you/we know this?
At first it looks like a compositional fallacy yet at the same time you cant get something from nothing just like you cant get life from non-life unless theres always been a type of eternal/universal intelligence in the first place otherwise non-intelligence would have always existed and not given rise to the intelligence we observe now.
Nonsense "non-life" is not "nothing". :roll:
Besides, order emerges from disorder (e.g. vacuum fluctuations, hurricanes, languages)
And if "you can't get life from non-life", then either (A) everything is alive, (B) nothing is alive "life" is an illusion or (C) biogenesis is a miracle product of divine/transcendent intelligence aka "God". Which do you "believe", kindred?
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?
How are we to understand what this claim that intelligence is an inherent part of nature even means? And even if we understood what the claim means possible rational or empirical reason would we have to believe such a thing?
Note I'm not denying that one might have emotional or psychological reasons to believe such a thing.
Hi Janus, as we know life came from non-life. Intelligence from non-intelligence so intelligence was at least a potential of non-life and since this potential actualised it means its been there all along rather than it being the first time it has emerged. This is my argument in a nutshell.
I fall into the A category although slightly modified everything has the potential to be alive or intelligent. Plant a seed and it will bloom into a tree given the right conditions. Inanimate matter given the right conditions will react with other non organic matter to form new types of matter to eventually multi cellular organism which is what the process of abiogeneses ultimately achieved.
No. "Life" is, as best we can tell, merely a very rare property of non-life.
No, it's actually manifest. "Intelligence" is, in its most basic form, the capability of adapting to change inherent in complex agent systems both living and artificial.
Okay, a quasi-animist.
The same would seem to be as true of life as it is of intelligence or consciousness.
Then you could equate life with intelligence and youd be saying that intelligence is a rare property of non-life. If, mass/matter only emerged with the Big Bang then it would follow that this intelligence is a property of this universe. We dont know if matter existed prior to the Big Bang but we do know that something has always existed. Otherwise the implication would be that the universe came from nothing or nothingness which is impossible.
Now since something has always existed in non-organic form and since you agree that life (or intelligence) is a rare property of non-life then it follows that theres a chance that in a pre big bang world this matter was organic too (life) and intelligent.
If this is so, then why, for example, does the universe need to establish atomic organization prior to the emergence of molecular organization (or intelligence)? Why didn't the universe make molecules first and then the atoms? Can it make molecules first, then atoms? What is the reason for this order of emergence in your view?
Yet, like you i believe that there is no real limit to the levels of intelligence that can emerge or be reached in the universe, except given enough time and evolutionary development as i already stated. Complex logical structures (facilitated by matter) are as potentially infinite as numbers are potentially infinite.
Irrespective of whether nature is deterministic or not we do know that life/intelligence emerged at least in this universe which means that not only is it a property of this universe but of existence itself.
Since life is a property or a potential of non-life through various chemical then biological processes then this property is merely a manifestation of its nature which is to be alive. Its not a goal btw, but a property and a potential.
The intelligence has always been there its just a matter of ingredients or parts. In order to build a car first you have to invent the wheel. The invention of the wheel is was a sign of great intelligence at the time. Next you invent the combustion engine, another exhibition of intelligence. In the end you end up with the finished product, now it doesnt necessarily mean that the inventor of the engine was more intelligent than the inventor of the wheel. Order happens in increments and, intelligence is intelligence, the orders of magnitude are irrelevant but the potential of intelligence is unlimited its like comparing apples to oranges or saying fish are more intelligent than cats because theyre better swimmers. Theyre just better adapted to certain things.
If life and intelligence were not inevitable evolutionary eventualities, that is if it is the case that they might not have evolved, then they are not necessary potentialities. Is there a valid distinction between possible and necessary potentialities according to you?
The other point is that whether or not life and intelligence were necessary or merely possible eventualities it is not appropriate to refer to them as properties prior to their advent.
I'm sympathetic to this line of thought, probably more so than others. But philosophically speaking, there's an issue with the question of the sense in which such an intelligence, were there one, could be said to exist.
Consider the idea of 'laws of nature'. It is naively assumed that these laws exist, but that has been called into question by philosophers of science (for example Nancy Cartwright, 'How the Laws of Physics Lie'.) Others will argue that there are such laws, or at least natural regularities that are law-like. But without going into the intricacies of those arguments, notice that the question of the existence or non-existrence of those laws or regularities, is of a different order to what can be predicted and explained by virtue of such laws. Taking the regularities of physics as an example, these allow for incredibly accurate predictions and explanations which are at the basis of much of the success of modern science. But why the laws of physics are as they are - why F=MA or e=mc[sup]2[/sup] - is of another kind of question. Explanations on that level, if there are to be any, must be meta-scientific or metaphysical.
So what I'm arguing is that the nature of the order which is essential to and assumed by science, is not itself a scientific question. Science relies on there being an order, but does not, and need not, explain why there is. And accordingly, statements about whether a designing intelligence or divinely-ordained order pre-exists or exists, are by their nature metaphysical statements. Which is not to say they're wrong, but that they are not subject to scientific analysis or demonstration. But claiming that these influences or entities [i[exist[/i] you're inviting the question, 'how can you show that or demonstrate that?' And I doubt that question can be answered in terms of the criteria of those who have a commitment to not believing it (who are legion!) You're essentially trying to bring a transcendent order of being down to the level of what can be said to exist.
I was perusing the SEP entry of a second-tier German philosopher that I hadn't heard of until recently, Max Scheler. He has this to say about religious experience:
Quoting SEP
Speaking from long experience, I think you will find that describes the majority view, at least on this forum.
(See also God Does Not Exist, Bishop Pierre Whalon.)
This may be somewhat dumb, but isn't it also the case that we (humans) are conducting the assessment here? Notions of 'intelligence' and 'reality' and 'the universe' would appear to me to be constructs of ours based on defeasible positions and knowledge which is constantly evolving. Is it even clear that reality can be understood by human beings? We are certainly able to build tentative theories and through some of them make predictions with results, but are we perhaps getting a bit ahead of ourselves in seeking to answer the OP's question? Thoughts?
Theres only a valid post-hoc distinction between possible and necessary in this case. Since life did emerge then its necessary, if it didnt then it was possible. Now not every rock can come to life, certain conditions have to be met (abiogenesis).
Now since life did actually emerge from non-life as we know, we do at least know that non-life has the potential to transform into various types of molecule up to a multicellular organism. The question is whether it did so prior to this universe. We do also know that in this universe it was inevitable why couldnt it be inevitable prior to this universe too ?
I don't think that's dumb at all but a very good question. We always assume that we know what we mean when we talk about 'god' or' universe' or 'necessary' or 'inevitable'. Even if we do understand what they mean in the context of our own thinking, or the epistemological context, we have no idea what relevance they might or might not have in what we might imagine as the "ontological" context.
I took the OP's question as being something like "are we warranted in saying that intelligence pre-existed existence". So we can ask whether that is even a meaningful question or whether it is a case of "language gone on holiday". Under the latter interpretation how could we be warranted in claiming something that we don't even understand?
All that being said how can we even know whether or not we understand these kinds of questions let alone answer them? I think you and I are of a similar deflationary spirit.
We don't know that it was inevitable in this universe though and that is because we don't know whether the universe is deterministic or non-deterministic. Current physical theory suggests the latter, and if the latter were the case, then life and intelligence should not be thought of as inevitable but merely possible.
I believe that nature, this universe, is fully deterministic, and it is precisely that deterministic nature that is an expression of its inherent intelligence. Chaos theory implies that even chaos has a logic, an order. We call what we don't understand random or non-deterministic because WE can't determine its reason. Nothing happens for no reason at all, and in that reason lies the intelligence many of us can't recognize. For there to be a potential for an eventuality, there must be something prior that enables eventualities to occur. What would you say this is, if anything?
Thanks I understand your point now. Just because life happened doesnt necessarily mean that it was inevitable. Since current physics (quantum physics) supports the view that some physical phenomena are non-deterministic then life was indeed a possibility yet it emerged and actualised but given enough time (eternity) then this possibility becomes an inevitability.
I would say that I don't see much reason to believe such a thing. In the early universe, according to current theory, there were no atoms and hence no chemistry. Without chemistry life and intelligence as we know and understand them would be impossible. Was the evolution of atoms inevitable? How could we know?
I'm not sure we would be warranted in claiming that it was inevitable even given the context of thinking in terms of no time limit. I understand 'eternity' to mean 'non-temporality' not 'an infinitely great amount of time' because I think the latter idea makes no sense.
Knowing if it's inevitable from a point in time before it happens may or may not be difficult to ascertain, depending on one's level of knowledge of the matrix of interactions between fundamental particles. The point is that it happened, and so we know after the fact that it was inevitable.
The point i was trying to get at with the question is the concept of absolute time (time with no arrow), and the logic of this 'time', which is, in essence, continuity, presistence and change (the cause of change, not its measurement), even before our universe, or we would not exist. Everything happens in due time.
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. Or it was there before the localised event such as the Big Bang happened. Given enough time, in this case eternity, the step from non-life to life and this intelligence occurred.
However there is a problem with infinate time as @Janus pointed out. If using the definition of infinite time makes no sense conceptually to us humans, then it helps to look at it from a different angle in terms of the laws of physics and change which would better accommodate the idea of infinite time (for after all what would time be if everything was static). Since the reality is always in flux apart from when its at absolute 0 then events happen in time, this creates endless possibilities for atoms to go from there to become living cells given the right incubating environment and other chemical interactions to occur.
Yet we are faced with a problem and that being whether life (intelligence) was an inevitability, however since we know that it actualised then to me it follows that it necessarily was because it did emerge. The other question is whether the same logic applies to the universe before the Big Bang. We of course dont know whether this possibility became an actuality there so we cant comment but even if the laws of physics were different there then it just means life was different too (if life came from non-life since its always a possibility, this at least we know for if something is actual it must have been possible)
That simply does not follow. For the rest I have no idea what you are trying to say.
For me, it is the opposite. It makes no sense to not have time and then all of a sudden for no reason time appears like magic. If time is change, and there were no time, then what changed for things to begin changing? Funny question isn't it. That is why everything exists inside time, never outside it (as that makes no sense). Existence cannot come from a state of absolute nothingness. In my view, time (absolute time, and the logic it contains) is the only thing that is not a thing, and is the source of things coming into being. Everything begins and ends except for time, and thus time is not a thing, and has always been, and will always be.
But apparently it did follow... literally.
Quoting Janus
Please be more specific if you can. Is it my concept of absolute time?
I agree that we cannot find the idea of non-temporal existence coherent. We cannot think a 'before time'. But we equally cannot find the idea of an infinite quantity of time coherent. Where do you think that leaves us?
The fact that it apparently did follow does not entail that it must have followed.
Quoting punos
I have no idea what "absolute time" could mean.
This is a good point. Time limit or no we know one thing for sure that is that life (intelligence) emerged. What you object to is whether it was an inevitability.
We also know that life was a possibility and we know this since it did emerge. Sometimes possibilities do not actualise and thats a fair point which means life would not have emerged here.
The strange thing is that it did! Could it have happened before? Its a possibility. The scary thing is if life has actually emerged for the first time rather than occur before yet since it was a possibility then its a question of likelihood whether it happened prior to this universe. It seems to me since this event has at least happened in this universe then life is a necessity of non-life irrespective of time frames.
It seems coherent to me. The alternative is what seems incoherent to me, like i explained.
Quoting Janus
First let me ask you what you think time is, just regular time as you understand it?
No, I surmise that they are independent, discrete properties which rarely overlap.
Yes.
How do you/we "know" this?
This phrase is nonsense. "World" (i.e. universe) is an effect of the Big Bang. "Pre-big bang" cannot be a "world".
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".
Quoting punos
It might "feel" coherent to you, but I bet you cannot give a coherent explanation of what it means.
Quoting punos
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?
Yes, the potential raw intelligence is there at the beginning like a seed, but it must unfold in order to actualize its potential. The same intelligence is operating at the atomic level, at the molecular level, at the cellular level, etc.
The only thing I'm saying is that this intelligence builds its own ladder and then climbs it rung by rung. At each level, new forms of logic become possible by virtue of the 'parts' and structures it produced in the prior emergence, like car parts. Once the general parts are there, then cars can be created, which gives rise to gas stations and freeways, which wouldn't make logical sense without the cars. It appears to me that we fundamentally agree except perhaps for a few details.
Sure the same way that tree is not as intelligent as a squirrel. I get you, yet we have both flora and fauna in this universe which over time emerged from non-life, after all this planet to begin with was a hot rock.
We know the process from non-life to life (abiogenesis) happened in the oceans under thermal vents where various chemical reactions could take place to non-organic matter to eventually simple cells such as bacteria and eventually multi-cellular ones and ultimately humans.
Life then before non-life was a possibility not actuality, the same applies to matter prior to the Big Bang, life for it too was a possibility given the right conditions it too could become alive. The question then is whether the same process of abiogenesis occurred there too and that is what is being contested here. Since we do know that life did emerge from a possibility to an actuality then its a question of likelihood whether this happened in a universe prior to the Big Bang is it not ? (Since non-life has the potential to become life under certain conditions)
Quoting 180 Proof
Logic, something cant come from nothing therefore something has always existed even if its vacuum its still something (space)
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.
It is not unreasonable to imagine that the universe is populated only by one-celled amoeba and nothing else.
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.
Then that must mean intelligence precedes life in that its the potential for inanimate matter to become matter. Where did this intelligence come from ? My argument is that its been there all along and preceded life.
Quoting Janus
We cant do calculations but we do know that intelligence has been there all along like a latent force that eventually manifested itself in nature. Whether this has occurred only once in this universe on our planet for the first time is debatable as it could have easily existed/manifested prior to the current universe.
Matter precedes intelligence.
Quoting Janus
Yes, this concept of time is like a medium in which change can occur. An analogy would be something like a stick with a joint. A joint like time allows for movement, and without it the stick remains unchanged. So it is the fundamental feature of this or any other universe.
Quoting Janus
The concept of 'ordinary time' is thought of as just a measurement of change, which is not the same thing. I can measure how much my stick with a joint moves, but it's not what allows for the movement itself. It is the same difference between gravity and weight, where weight is the measurement of gravity, not gravity itself. This ordinary time is also thought of as having an arrow which has to do with the spreading of entropy. Absolute time has no arrow because it is conceived of existing by itself without space or matter.
Let me ask this question again:
If time is change, and there were no time (no change), then what could possibly change for things to begin changing?
Then how or why did matter become intelligent unless intelligence was there to begin with.
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.
How can the stick "remain" if there is no time?
Quoting punos
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.
Quoting punos
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.
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.
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?
Time in this context of the stick analogy is just the joint itself. The rest of the stick can be thought of as space. The stick when it is unbent at the joint represents the undifferentiated universe, and when bent represents differentiation. The analogy of course like all other analogies break down at some point. Its just a device to explain one aspect of what i'm trying to explain.
Quoting Janus
I do not believe in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. Things have to happen first, and then measured to be coherent. Why is it that we do not know the result of a measurement until the measurement is taken? Measurements are not decided upon arbitrarily prior to the event. If i think the cat is dead in the box does that mean when i open the box it will be dead? I can only know after the fact, not that i made it happen.
Quoting Janus
So if time and change would not have never begun, then how does anything begin? Yes, i am thinking in terms of there being something temporally prior to the ARROW of time, which is not a contradiction in terms, but in fact two different terms.
I wish i could find another word for this concept apart from the word "time" that wouldn't cause so much confusion. Sometimes i hate human language... so limited.
Paul Davies has some writing on that:
[Quote="Paul Davies, God and the New Physics;https://amzn.asia/d/355NiQ2"] 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[/quote]
* The 'baffling regularity' of the universes initial conditions, as described by Paul Davies and the astronomically low probability that Roger Penrose estimates, connects to what is known as the "naturalness problem" in physics.
The naturalness problem refers to the question of why certain physical parameters in the universe appear to be extremely fine-tuned or balanced in ways that seem highly improbable or unnatural, given the expected outcomes of random initial conditions. In the case of cosmology, this problem often arises in discussions of the early universe's smoothness, the distribution of matter and energy, and the apparent low entropy at the start of the Big Bang, which Penrose and others have pointed out should be overwhelmingly unlikely if chosen randomly. The same issue appears in particle physics, where the values of constants (like the cosmological constant or the Higgs boson mass) seem fine-tuned to allow for a universe like ours.
Davies and Penrose both highlight the improbability of our universes configuration, suggesting that a random distribution of matter would have led to a universe filled with black holes rather than one with stars and galaxies. This tension between the "expected" outcome and the "actual" outcome is central to the naturalness problem, prompting physicists to explore deeper explanations, such as multiverse theories, anthropic principles, or as-yet-undiscovered physical laws.
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.
Well. sorry, I'm not getting it at all.
Quoting punos
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.
Quoting punos
The idea, as far as I understand it, is that the overall conditions that we understand as time and change never did begin. 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.
Because we have reasons for doing things we do, we find it hard to grasp that the Universe could have evolved as it has purely on the basis of random accidents, and that our ideas of temporality and atemporality are most probably inadequate for assessing anything outside of our own limited ways of thinking.
There is no reason to think that we should be able to understand the nature of reality. The best we can do is to try to sort out what we can honestly say we do understand within the limited context of our knowledge and thought.
That's ok... i'm kinda used to it anyway. You don't have to keep trying if you don't want. I appreciate the effort.
Quoting Janus
I suspect that the collapse of the wave function is not a real and actual thing that happens in the world, instead it is a phenomena of the mind when knowledge or some form of data is acquired such as a measurement. The probabilistic nature of QM is not an aspect of QM, but an aspect of our state of ignorance and uncertainty. While we do not know something it remains a probabilistic outcome from a subjective perspective, and of course when one then takes a measurement, the uncertainty is resolved and thus it is said "the wave function has collapsed".
Quoting Janus
Interesting, can you elaborate a little further on this issue of differential perspectives? What do you mean by doesn't belong to "that perspective"?
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.
Quoting punos
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.
I'm happy to admit my ignorance, but it is my ignorance that compels me to know. I don't give up so easily. One thing i do know just for myself is that there is always in principle a way to know what is currently unknown. Sometimes things seem too hard and insurmountable, or even impossible until one strikes upon the right idea that sets up the right perspective to see clearly enough for at least a potential solution. This is how knowledge evolves.
Quoting Janus
Maybe you are right, but it seems to me to be at least the first justifiable step, even if what seems obvious turns out to be wrong. But my whole point is that there is no such thing as non-temporality, either before or after the Big Bang.
Anyway, i hope to one day tell it like it is before my time runs out. :smile:
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.
Intelligence is linked to "order" because order confers structure, rhythm, sequence, consistency, uniformity, spatial dimensions and relationships, patterns, all of which we use to gain our bearings in a rational way.
Order (and therefore intelligence) is also related to "negative entropy" -the opposite of disorder and chaos. There are two such states cited to have significant negative entropy. The cosmological singularity (a zero entropy dimensionless state) and Life (a system of order/self organisation that opposes entropy/minimises chaos to gain stability and complexity through time.
I'm inclined to avoid placing the cosmological singularity as "before" or "predating" the current universe as if its dimensionless -time didn't exist. Therefore it doesn't make any more sense to say its before (as that is contingent on linear time).
I would say the singularity being outside of Time would be just as "close" to the start as to all points in time. Which is a bit mind bending.
Just a thought. I wonder if there are some human-centric assumptions inherent in this. If there is elegance in anything, it is surely because we have invented the notion of elegance (and cultures vary regarding what elegance looks like). We don't see elegance as such, we project ourselves onto the world and interpret or create notions of elegance.
You say human cognition may only work because reality has inherent logic. 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. We can't even look at clouds or shadows without seeing people, creatures, shapes and faces - pareidolia.
Quoting 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.
I believe, that where scientism misleads us is that it often conflates "understandable" with "understood". Many people take the capacity of science to predict as evidence that the predicted phenomenon is understood. This is clearly not the case in fields like physics, which operate from laws which enable prediction, with disregard for understanding. For example, "relativity" is a theory designed to enable prediction at the compromise of disabling understanding, producing ontologies such as model-based realism, which assume that true understanding is simply impossible.
The issue with the religious experience is that by its very nature it is unique. And, the fact that it is a unique experience proves something very important about the nature of the universe: its capacity to produce unique things. Uniqueness has no place in a world understood through the scientific process of repetition, and the application of general laws. However, uniqueness is a very real aspect of our world, and understanding the process whereby it is realized, comes into being, is a very important feature of understanding the nature of the world. This is a feature which science cannot understand, nor provide for us the capacity to understand, because science is specifically designed to ignore it (as the difference which does not make a difference).
That issue is not commonly approached by philosophers, many of whom simply assume the overarching power of the scientific process, to understand the world in absolute terms, through the capacity of prediction, which lays waste to uniqueness. However, it is very well addressed by Plato in "The Timaeus", where he introduces the concept of "matter" as that which is responsible for the uniqueness we observe within the world.
I see what Scheler is driving at, but I don't really agree that 'For the modern thinker, only those experiences that can be proven in a rational or logical manner are true or evidential experiences' really captures it. What should be said is, 'only what can be demonstrated empirically and/or proven logically or mathematically is taken to be evidential'. Here 'empirically' means 'validated by sensory observation' (including observation amplified by instruments).
Later in the same article we find 'For Scheler, the experience of the holy or of the absolute is not given through rational proof, but in the distinctive evidential mode of revelation'. What I think he's wanting to describe is 'transcendent insight' or gnosis. But the use of the term 'revelation' is problematical, in my view. 'Revealed truth' is generally understood to be a prophetic vision or communication by and from the deity. Again, I think I understand what he's driving at, but I would express it differently. But in the Western lexicon, there are many terms for what Buddhists and Hindus would describe as 'Jñ?na' (or gnosis). It's invariably understood in terms of revelation rather than insight.
And I don't know if I agree that such insights are 'unique' in the sense of only pertaining to one individual. Consider the lineages of Mah?y?na Buddhist orders, which have for many generations practiced the transmission of the teaching from teacher to student, and recorded the sayings and teachings of its adepts in a recognisable framework of principles and practice. There are recognised stages of realisation in Buddhist literature (see for example the Ten Bhumis). There's really nothing synonymous in Western culture to my knowledge.
I'm thinking more along the lines of James' classic The Varieties of Religious Experience. In that book, there are many examples of various kinds of religious or spiritual insight. But of course that is all 'behind the firewall' as far as our culture is concerned. It doesn't amount to admissable evidence of anything save the subjective experience of individuals.
The point about many kinds of scientific observations, is that they often occur within a highly specified set of circumstances - the lab or the workshop. They are contrived to generate very specific kinds of evidence. Whereas a deep philosophical insight might not depend on any apparatus or any specific situation whatever. It might arise in a mind that is especially attuned or sensitive to a high level of insight, but that doesn't necessarily mean that this is subjective, in the sense of pertaining only to an individual. 'Transcendent' is neither subjective nor objective.
Deep issue, I guess.
Yes but the assumption made here is that reality is "outside" and therefore we are "projecting" our sense of logic or elegance onto it. But we are as much reality as the external environment. A technicality easily overlooked but not insignificant.
We have access to reality because we aren't separate from it. We are made of it from the bottom up and somewhere there along the hierarchy is the emergence of a sense of separation and individuality, subjectivity.
I'm a believer in the "as above so below" concept that fundamental phenomena reiterate and permeate all levels of reality regardless of the object - subject dichotomy. There are cycles, rhythms, fractals and geometry in our structure as sentient beings and these same basic patterns are found everywhere throughout nature. Echoes as it were of some innate law or building blocks that are as consistent and universal as they are seemingly diverse through their various reiterations.
That's the "intelligence" I refer to that is both shared by the "external" as it is by the "internal". They're not separable (we are dynamic and have inputs and and outputs both sensory/actionably and materially speaking) with our external environment.
However despite not being separable in any absolute or permanent sense, we still contend with such things as the hard problem of consciousness which makes the objective mechanics of the universe feel alien to the emergent fuzzy warm gloop of experience, even if the ability to be conscious is demonstrated by the universe through life systems.
I'm not a proponent of an objective and infinite multiverse, instead I propose our individual subjective frameworks are the "proverbial multiverse." That is...the universe according to each of us is each a unique framework or universe concept - a psychological multiverse (personalities/minds).
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 Big Bang Theory was originally described in terms that sound like a physical event that we typically call an "Explosion". But the actual explosions we observe or create could be characterized as Instant Entropy, and depicted as the vanishingly-brief flash of light emitted from New Years Day fireworks. Such an explosion converts stored Potential Energy into Kinetic Energy then back into the Nothingness of total Entropy. In an attempt to avoid that nothing-to-nothing flash-in-the-pan*1 implication, some scientists preferred to portray the event as-if a gradual & orderly "Expansion" , i.e. Evolution. Even so, no scientific theory has an explanation for the source of that cosmic causal Energy, or for the physical Laws that control & coordinate the evolutionary expansion of undefined Potential into the "organized patterns" of a self-defining Cosmos . . . . instead of the dissipated dust of expired Entropy.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution was an attempt to explain the emergence of living & thinking organisms from a purely material & mechanical system of Causation & Selection. Yet, he seemed to assume, as an unarticulated Axiom, that the necessary god-like Power & Logic existed eternally. Henri Bergson also had no explanation for the how & why of Evolution. But he recognized the necessity for some kind of Intelligent Design*2 in the title of his book : Creative Evolution. Unfortunately, our lack of direct evidence for a pre-bang Intelligence, limits any explanation for the original Cause & Laws --- necessary to program the Evolutionary Mechanism with logical rules (if-then, and/or) --- to rational Philosophical Speculation. Therefore, the OP question cannot be answered with empirical scientific facts. We can only apply our human form of Logic & Intelligence to continue the search for answers to Ontological questions. :cool:
*1. flash-in-the-pan : a sudden spasmodic effort that accomplishes nothing
*2. What is the most accurate definition of intelligence?
Although contemporary definitions of intelligence vary considerably, experts generally agree that intelligence involves mental abilities such as logic, reasoning, problem-solving, and planning.
https://www.verywellmind.com/theories-of-intelligence-2795035
Would you say that explains everything?
A cat is only an expanding (cooling or entropic) vacuum fluctuation? A supernova? 14 galaxies? A number? Your self?
Seems to me that is an explanation for everything. Mic drop type wisdom for the ages. Conversation over. Whatever the next question is the answer is some other vacuum fluctuation. Chocolate and vanilla are both the same - versions of vacuum fluctuations.
It only "explains" the planck era of the universe which excludes "intelligence" (re: @kindred's OP).
You are mistaken (hasty generalization).
What else is there besides vacuum fluctuations?
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.
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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:
Not something but intelligence particularly. Since inanimate matter has the potential to become animate through abiogenesis and eventually intelligent Id 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 hadnt yet it did, which remains a mystery.
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. Theres 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.
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.
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.
Thats not the question Im 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 dont 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.
Quoting 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 dont 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.
Compositional fallacy. :roll:
God breathed life into the dust, in the Biblical myth, which is at least an evocative allegory.
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?
Quoting 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 dont see how its such a fallacy. Theres 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 ?
Its like looking at the mechanism of a clock, wouldnt you say theres an intelligence behind such a mechanism ? Same for the solar system galaxies atoms etc.
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 its an embedded property of matter then physicalism would be true and false if otherwise.
In my view, intelligence is a physical thing.
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 thats the case ?
Yes. 'Intelligence' is an emergent feature of sufficiently complex living systems.
Wtf :roll: Now a genetic fallacy. They are not "intelligent", the physicists are. Physical laws are only invariant features artifacts of physical theories.
Since "a clock" presupposes the universe, an analogy of "clock" to "universe" does not work.
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.
Quoting WayfarerI 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?
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.
Thats 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. Im sure you dont disagree with this. Although life itself may not be intelligent such as that of a bacteria its 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.
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.
Quoting punos
If there is no temporality before the Big Bang then there is no "before the Big Bang".
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 ?
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 ? Youre saying the pond is dead I say its 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.
Not sure I follow since Im omitting a physical thing which is what sodium is.
I laughed at this.
My dude, are you not seeing the point?
Am I missing something obvious captain ?
I assume your elocution skills have failed you.
Without reading the previous five pages, this seems to instead ask: "Was the Big Bang really the beginning of the universe?" or perhaps "Are there other universes outside of our own?" If the answer to the former is "no" or the latter "yes", then it's a simple non-scientific and non-philosophical "shot in the dark" assumption to suggest: "Sure, billions of years went by and in the past few thousand the dawn of intelligent man came about, and within barely 150 years man went from defecating outside in a hole like a wild animal to commuting to and from state-of-the-art skyscrapers for work in a self-driving car with not a single happening in any corner of the known Earth not instantly available at his fingertips for his reading pleasure - so in the context of billions of years, it's certainly likely the process repeated itself before."
Microorganisms exist on other planets and in space (I think?). I wouldn't quite call that a form of "intelligence", more like efficient cellular processes that sustain and allow it to replicate and advance itself, however minutely. Is there this "universal consciousness" that exists everywhere matter does that all intelligent beings "tap into" which gives us our sense of consciousness? That would be a bit metaphysical, bordering on religious.
My (uninformed) take on the matter, at least.
With that my argument is more concise and simpler and can be restated as such:
Intelligence precedes the universe, and has eternally existed independently of it and its manifestation in nature is inevitable.
It is inevitable because it has occurred at least once (in this universe). As such its likely that it has manifested itself prior to the current universe we just have no proof but have good reason to believe that it has done so.
Since the manifestation of intelligence turned out to be inevitable in this universe why couldnt it have turned out to be inevitable in a universe before this one!
Merely an article of faith. :sparkle: :eyes:
Not faith, I know Intelligence actualised in this universe, whats your actual objection to it not having actualised in a prior universe also?
Sure I will grant you this and that it cant be empirically verified. And I or you cannot know for sure if it did exist in a prior universe as we cant test it.
We can however make the following claims about intelligence which will yield proof in the end.
1. It inevitably manifested itself in nature, at least our reality (this universe)
2. If something is inevitable then it happens in this universe, the one prior and maybe the one after if conditions are right.
3. Intelligence exists as a possibility then actual after a period of time.
We also dont know why there is life rather then non-life, after all matter could just do nothing and not bring about life (and thus intelligence) but something extraordinary happened, life. Which means that it must have been pre-existing not just as a potential but a real thing.
If life came from non-life cant you say it was there all along ? For how could it emerge if it wasnt? In this way we dont need empirical proof to know that life/intelligence has always been around.
Ah, materialist philosophy of mind. Ill try out some objections. First, youre up against the hard problem - theres never been a plausible account of how the first-person nature of lived experience arises from the processes described by objective science. Experience has a qualitative dimension which never appears in the equations of physics by design, due to the Cartesian division at the origin of modern science, the separation of primary (measurable) and secondary (subjective) attributes.
Practical illustration. You arrive home to discover your house and everything in it has burned down. If there was an instrument that could capture your precise neuronal and physiological state at that instant, it might capture data from which a suitably-trained user might be able to infer a state of acute emotional distress, and which would be an objectively accurate account. But on the basis of that data no matter how detailed, there would no way to determine how it feels and what it means to you. Saying that this is neuronal or physical might be objectively accurate but it would also be meaningless in the absence of the first-person perspective - namely, yours - which you bring to it.
Quoting Patterner
It is called mathematical physics for good reason. Have you read Eugene Wigners The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences? Wigner won a Nobel for discoveries prompted by mathematical symmetries in atomic physics. He argues in that essay that there have been very many cases where empirical discoveries were made as kind of unintentional consequences of mathematical calculations. He says we seem to get much more out of the equations than we have apparently put in. He doesnt claim to explain this fact - actually the word miracle appears quite a few times. But then, Pythagoreanism's all is number, is suggestive of these kinds of ideas, and that is a rich vein of philosophy in the Western tradition. After all Galileo famously said the book of nature is written in the language of mathematics. And I would have thought a great deal of the success of modern science arises from the ability to apply mathematical logic to physical objects and forces.
Then again, much of physics itself is based on ideal objects, like perfect gases or perfectly smooth planes, which dont actually exist but which enable highly accurate predictive power over things that do physically exist.
So I think the case can be made that mathematics is intrinsic to physics itself, and that the basic elements of mathematics are not themselves physical. (The SEP entry on Physicaism has an entry on this.)
We can say anything without evidence.
We don't know yet.
I don't see how this is relevant. There is no consensus amongst epistemologists as to what warrants anything as "knowledge". So this type of attack on "insight" as a form of "direct knowing", is just the expression of a subjective opinion base in one's personal preference as to what constitutes "knowing".
We consistently encounter this sort of problem, in this type of thread, with many similar terms, "intelligence", "consciousness", "experience", "intention", etc.. The problem is that how one understands terms like these is dependent on the philosophy which the person has read or discussed previously. And amongst the participants here, there is a wide variance.
So from your perspective, the proponents of "direct knowing" can never answer the question of what it is about the experience, which warrants calling it "knowing". From my perspective no one can ever answer the question of what it is about any experience which warrants calling it "knowing", so this comment is super unproductive.
I gotcha. I misinterpreted your post that I initially responded to.
Here is another way of looking at the difference between subjective uniqueness, and objective uniqueness.
Consider that we general distinguish between subjects with principles of spatial form and spatial separation. These distinctions constitute what we call our uniqueness, unique features, properties, and unique spatial positioning. This is what I would call subjective uniqueness.
Objective uniqueness is the uniqueness of the moment in time, what we call "now". Notice that as time passes there is at every moment, a new and unique "now", never a repetition, such that the entire universe is new and unique at each passing moment. Now, that each and every part of the universe partakes of this same unique moment, in its own way, is a brute fact concerning the nature of the universe. Plato, makes an interesting comment in "The Sophist" (I believe, perhaps it "Parmenides"), where Socrates compares the existence of the Idea, or Form, to the existence of the day. No matter how many different places partake of "the day", the day is no more, or no less "the day". In other words, the way that the various different things partake in that unique moment in time known as "today", this in no way alters the uniqueness of "today" itself.
Relativity theory annihilates this "brute fact", the uniqueness of the moment in time, which we know as "now". Consequently relativity theory, which is a very useful principle for relating and measuring very distinct types of motions, annihilates "objective uniqueness". This leaves us with only "subjective uniqueness" as the means for understanding the reality of uniqueness. However, subjective uniqueness, by which we distinguish one subject from another subject, by reference to spatial principles, is only an appearance of uniqueness, because every subject has a real, underlying connection to each other, by partaking in the same unique moment in time. So, rather than understanding the true uniqueness of objective uniqueness, which renders us all in another sense "the same", such an "understanding" of subjective uniqueness, which assumes a spatial separation between us instead of a temporal unity within an objective uniqueness, will always be a misunderstanding.
Yes we dont but weve given that process a name called Abiogenesis, the alternative would be woo-woo as to how life came about and we dont want that.
What is wrong with saying life/intelligence not just emerged but it has been there all along just not manifested to what we today recognise as life ?
At what level of would you call it life is irrelevant because the intelligence displayed even from the structure of the atom to the way the solar system is aligned is apparent (even if life had not emerged there yet)
Isnt it like looking at the mechanism of a clock and claiming theres intelligence in action there or is your definition of intelligence more strict and narrow than that ?
Nothing except saying that amounts to an evidence-free fairytale pseudo-science (e.g. "intelligent design") or pseudo-philosophy (e.g. "vitalism, panpsychism") that does not explain anything.
No. As I've previously pointed out, the "clock analogy" doesn't work.
My view is pantheistic more than anything and probably Spinozist.
Instead of power though Im using the term intelligence which although not synonymous dictates how nature is a manifestation of such a power. Im kinda new to Spinoza so you might have to help me with his conception of God, if he is eternal then so is the power and intelligence which precede its manifestation in nature.
No my claim is that something exists before it manifests as an actual thing in the world, in this case intelligence. To me at least it has always existed. Its manifestation in nature is merely the evidence that it always has existed. Does this make more sense to you ?
Inanimate matter could have continued to remain inanimate yet it didnt because we have life (intelligence) so something happened to it which we cant explain, we call this process abiogenesis. There are two options either intelligence is embedded in matter or it is separate from it. If it was the latter it must have acted upon matter to give it life, I hope this explanation does not sound supernatural but is one that makes logical sense. If its the former then theres no issue as intelligence would simply be an inherent property of matter.
Actually, abiogenesis is what is best described as "woo-woo".
Quoting Janus
You can make such statements all you want, but it doesn't resolve the problem. It just indicates that you have a hard and fast prejudice as to what qualifies as "knowledge". Does a slime mold have "knowledge" for example?
I believe its an accepted scientific theory, whats the alternative when it comes to explaining the origin of life ?
It's not science. Science is supported by empirical evidence. It's just woo-woo magical thinking.
How would you be able to obtain empirical evidence of the creation of life from non life which is said to have occurred 3.5 billion years ago ? The best we can do is theorise.
What part of the above is woo-woo when it clearly tries to use the scientific method to investigate how the transition from non-life to life occurred?
Notice the paragraph says "aims", "attempts", and concludes with "Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain the origins and interactions of these classes of molecules". The point very clearly made is that there is no successful theory of abiogenesis. Therefore it's nothing but "woo-woo".
You keep calling it woo-woo, but doesnt all science aim and attempt to explain natural phenomena using the scientific method? Youre incorrect in your assumption that abiogenesis has the answer to how life happened. This may be speculative but its not woo-woo, we may never know how life occurred from non-life.
Slime molds arguably have know-how. It's not a matter of a "hard and fast prejudice" but of being cautious ascribing the "honorific" 'knowledge' to cases where we cannot explain just how they could count as such.
We know we have empirical knowledge in the form of observations, logical and mathematical knowledge in the form of deductions and know-how insofar as we are demonstrably able to do anything. How would you justify for example a belief that one might hold that they had an experience wherein they knew God or "the true nature of reality"?
The burden would be on you to explain how such claims to knowledge could possibly be warranted.
When someone such as yourself claims that abiogenesis is how life came about, that is nothing but woo-woo. Then to add that it\s a scientific theory, is nothing but to use falsity to support your woo-woo. It is not a scientific theory because it is not supported by science, meaning it is not supported by empirical evidence. That there are scientists who have sought to support abiogenesis with science, but have proven to be unsuccessful, is simply evidence that abiogenesis is nothing but woo-woo.
Quoting Janus
OK, so you support what I said then. Your use of "arguably" indicates exactly my point, we really have no consensus on what warrants "knowing".
Quoting Janus
Why ask me this? I am the one claiming that we cannot answer the question of what warrants "knowing". I'll repeat myself:
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Abiogenesis is simply a theory of how life came from non-life, whats woo-woo about that ? Its just a word for a type of process(es) that occurred 3.5 billions of years ago during the inception of life. How can it be supported by science when were not privy to the conditions and events that transformed non living matter to living one 3.5 billions of years ago.
In the absence of alternative theories abiogenesis is just a label of how life came from non-life. You may dismiss it as woo-woo but it still remains a valid theory although it doesnt have the answers of exactly how life came about, you have the right to remain sceptical about it.
If a slime mold can do something self-initiated then it knows how to do that thing. I'm not claiming that it experiences itself, or understands itself, as knowing.
Anyway, know-how has not been the focus of my part in the discussion, but rather 'knowing that' or what is called 'propositional knowledge'. We can warrant that we know things via empirical observation and logic. We cannot warrant that we know anything propositional in any other way I can think of. If you can think of an example that involves and demonstrates another way of knowing-that then why not present it for scrutiny?
"Hypothesis" would be a more scientifically appropriate word to use than "theory" in the context of discussing abiogenesis.
Thanks wonderer that makes more sense, although abiogenesis is unsatisfactory at this time in terms of providing answers or conclusive explanation of how non-life to life happened it at least gives us something to work on.
Afaik, Spinoza is an acosmist² and not a "pantheist"¹ like (e.g.) Hegel.
(2023)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/825698 [1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acosmism [2]
Ive used the term pre-existing to describe a phenomenon that has always existed prior to its manifestation in nature in this case intelligence. As we have evidence of intelligence existing in the world its not unreasonable to ask whether its always been or only emerged at some point in time like matter did with the Big Bang.
We know with certainty that intelligence (human or non-human) emerged at some point in the distant past and that it emerged from inanimate matter, this must mean that its been there all along or it wouldnt exist at all. Why would it exist if it didnt exist ?
When I say its been there all along Im faced with a problem because the same logic can be applied to matter as we know that it hasnt been there all along, it only existed after the Big Bang. Yet we dont fully understand the Big Bang either or how something can come from nothing which is not logically possible unless its always been there in some form or other eternally. This same logic can be applied when we talk about intelligence.
Quoting tim wood
Im not claiming the existence of non-existing things, Im claiming that something (matter, intelligence) has always existed.
In my understanding "woo-woo" means unscientific. A theory, such as abiogenesis, which is completely unsupported by any science, is, by that definition, woo-woo.
Quoting kindred
Right, it's valid as "a theory", just not valid as a "scientific theory". Therefore we may, and ought to, dismiss it as woo-woo.
Quoting Janus
See, this is a very clear example of exactly the epistemological problem I pointed to. You narrow down the definition of "knowledge", to make the word refer only to one specific type of what is commonly called "knowledge", to produce an argument which supports your prejudice. That is what Wittgenstein, in the Philosophical Investigations, called creating boundaries in the use of a word, for a purpose. As I said, it's "super unproductive" in a philosophical argument, because it's nothing other than the fallacy of begging the question.
Quoting kindred
The point though, is that as an hypothesis, it has been around for quite some time, and as your quoted paragraph indicates, scientists have been unsuccessful in their attempts to provide the science required to support it. Failure to prove an hypothesis, after many attempts, is evidence that the hypothesis is incorrect. Compare abiogenesis with the concept of "spontaneous generation". This was once a very popular hypothesis, which scientists failed to prove. It is through recognition that the pervading hypothesis is incorrect, and through examining the evidence of those failures, that we move along to better hypothesis.
No, I apply the word 'knowledge' only to those cases where we can clearly explain how it is that we know. It is obvious that we know things propositionally via observation and via logic. If you can point to another mode of knowing (other than know-how and the knowing of acquaintance or recognition, because those are not the subjects at issue) then do so.
As far as I'm concerned, any hypothesis about the origin of life on earth is better than abiogenesis, because abiogenesis is really nothing other than the lack of an hypothesis. It basically says that since we have no idea where life came from, or how life came about, let's just assume that it sprang from nothing (spontaneous generation). See, it's really a lack of hypothesis, more than anything else. The flying spaghetti monster is a better hypothesis, because at least it hypothesizes something
Quoting Janus
Propositional knowledge is a form of know-how. So your dismissal of "know-how" is unjustified. And, as I said, you want to reduce "knowledge" in general, (which would include all forms of know-how) to one specific type, knowing how to explain things through the use of propositions, to serve your purpose. That's not productive, we need to go the other way, to see what all the different types of knowledge have in common, if we want to understand "knowledge".
Youre misconstruing what abiogenesis is, it is the emergence of life from non-life via natural processes not spontaneous generation. Therefore it remains a valid hypothesis though it may not have all the answers we are looking for.
If it was an actual hypothesis, then those "natural processes" which account for the emergence of life from non-life would be named, and the hypothesis could be tested. But there is no named natural processes which are hypothesized to lead to from non-life to life, and no real hypothesis. Instead it is assumed that life just sprang into existence, through some sort of spontaneous generation.
I'm not jumping on board for any hypothesis or theory of how non-living matter became living, because, even though we can stack the deck any way we want, we haven't managed it. We don't have to try to set up the conditions of primordial earth, and see if any life arises. We can create any conditions we want, making everything as favorable as possible. But we haven't managed to make non-living matter live.
But if that's not how life began, what other possibilities are there? Sure, some think meteorites brought what was needed. But that's not the same as bringing life. Whatever they brought would still have to have become living, presumably after joining with other non-living matter already here.
And even if meteorites brought actual life, then the question is just put off to wherever it originated.
So if life did not come from non-living material, what other options are there?
No problem. :up:
Quoting Wayfarer
I could interpret what you say here in two ways: One. In other words, you are supporting physicalism. If there's never been an account of how the first-person nature of lived experience arises from the objective source, then wouldn't that tell you that maybe it's because it can be sufficiently explained through physicalism alone?
Two. We just accept that there are two categories of existence -- the physical and the non-physical without further argumentation.
Quoting Wayfarer
I see where I need to make what I said clearer (or at least, my idea of physicalism).
It is not a matter of objectively perceiving what one feels -- in your example, turmoil and distress. Physicalism is not in the business of determining the objectivity (or the lack thereof) of experience. I think we make a mistake when we take physicalism as an epistemic theory, rather than an ontological theory. If it could demonstrate (and I think it does pretty well) that all things supervenes on the physical structure, then it has done its job.
What I think is difficult for us to reconcile with accepting the truth of physicalism is that we, by default, feel defeated by the notion of the "mechanical". But if you follow Aristotle's 4 causes, it theorizes that we're not just machines in motion, but could be affected by changes in our environment, the efficient cause. So, we are necessarily in the trajectory of change. However, there's the final cause, which is described as the point of our existence (the end or purpose). Here you could argue that the final cause is a subjective notion -- but if you actually incorporate all the 4 causes into the formation of an entity, you'd find that the trajectory of our existence necessarily leads to us being the way we are. (We need to drop this expression "in motion", like particles are in motion. Rather, we have to think in terms of imprinting, or molding, or even influencing).
You are still misunderstanding the point. I realize that propositional knowledge can be understood as a kind of know-how, but that is not relevant to what I've been saying. As I already said we can easily explain how we know that something is the case if we've witnessed it and we can easily see that we know things deductively in logic and mathematics and when it comes to know-how we can easily see that we know how to do something when we are able to do it.
Now I've challenged you to come up with some other kind of purported knowledge, and to explain how it is that you know that it is knowledge.
No, because the fact of one's own being is neither a physical fact, nor can it be denied (cogito ergo sum).
Quoting L'éléphant
And here, 'supervenes' is able to be defined in just such a way as to paper over any current or even newly-discovered inadequacies in physicalism.
Quoting L'éléphant
Well, speaking of Aristotle, he distinguishes artifacts (i.e. machines) from organisms on the basis that the latter are self-organising and their parts all work together to maintain the whole. Whereas machines are manufactured, their principle is external to them, and each part performs only the role designated by manufacturer.
No, I'm opposed to physicalism because I think it's an illusion, something like a very influential popular myth. Because we're bedazzled by science and technology (and hey I'm no different in that respect) we see the world in those terms, but matter has no ultimate, mind-independent reality. Tangential to the original post, but there it is.
Physicalism can even explain mental functions, like how we perceive different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, differentiate between different wavelengths, and move to avoid things that will harm the body.
But physicalism doesn't explain how the first-person nature of lived experience arises. As Chalmers puts it:
Quoting David Chalmers
And no wonder. I've quoted Brian Greene in [I]Until the End of Time[/I] before. Here it is again;I haven't seen where any scientist contradicts him, explaining how those features and the mathematical description does the job. I've tried reading Tse and Damasio, on the recommendation of @wonderer1. I've looked at other sources. But I have not seen any theory or hypothesis that addresses why it doesn't all take place "in the dark.". There just seems to be an unspoken acceptance that, when you put enough mental functions, like the ones I just mentioned, together, it just happens.
Your phrasing ("how non-living matter became living") betrays an underlying misunderstanding of the problem. Classical ontology premises immaterial Forms which are prior to, and the cause of material existence. In this ontology, there is no issue of non-living matter becoming living matter, there is an immaterial form of life, which became a material form of life.
So your phrasing, instead of questioning whether immaterial forms became material forms, or, non-living matter became living matter, already excludes the former, and assumes the latter as a starting point. However, there is no science which supports this exclusion.
Quoting Janus
I've been trying to tell you that this is an extremely unproductive restriction to place on "knowledge". The criteria you suggest, that one must know how one knows what one knows, in order for the person to "know" what one knows, is completely unrealistic. People know all sorts of things without any idea as to how they know them. That is what Socrates demonstrated. He went to all sorts of people with different types of knowledge, and requested of them, that they demonstrate how they know what they know. He stumped them all, in every field he approached. That is a fundamental and also very important aspect of "knowledge", which one must understand, in order to understand the nature of knowledge.
Knowing is clearly prior to knowing how we know, as the temporal priority demonstrates that it is impossible to know how we know prior to knowing. Therefore to dismiss knowledge, just because the person does not know how they know what they know, or to insist that they must know how they know, in order for that knowledge to be relevant, is an illogical thing for you to do.
The fact is, that no one truly knows how they know what they know. Your claims that we can easily explain how we know some types of things, is completely false, stemming from a confidence induced illusion. For example, claiming "I witnessed X" in no way explains how you know X. This is because "witnessed" does not equate with "know". And, in the case of logic and mathematics, epistemologists really cannot say how logic works. How do you know that 2+2=4? Is it because your teacher said so? Proofs serve no purpose here because they do not demonstrate that one knows how the proof proves.
It's called "logic", from basic premises which are very well supported by empirical evidence.. Here, look at my first post on this thread, for a start. We can use that as the basis for discussion if you are interested.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Quoting Patterner
That is the basic premise of metaphysics in the classical tradition. Of course it is a truism that nowadays metaphysics has fallen into disrepute, viewed as dusty tomes of scholastic philosophy. But theres been a recent revival, and theres a great book, which a kindly soul has made available online, Thinking Being: Introduction to Metaphysics in the Classical Tradition, of which theres an unauthorised .pdf copy online (which is just as well, as its both out of print, and extremely expensive in hardcopy.) The first several chapters lays out the origin of Platos forms with pristine clarity.
I haven't read Aristotle, or much of anything else. So I don't know what I don't know. This may be universally understood in a specific way, but I'm not aware of it. Is the agent not organized, therefore needing it's own agent/organizer? Are you talking about the uncaused cause?
"Organized" refers to material existents. The term therefore is not applicable to the cause of material existence which, being prior to material existence, is necessarily immaterial. And the terminology of "uncaused cause" is not very useful unless well defined, due to the multitude of distinct ways that "cause" is used.
Quoting Wayfarer
There is a relatively simple way around this problem. First, the recognition that "eternal" in classical theism means "outside of time", as you state. Second, we recognize that "time" in the conventional conception is derived from change. "Time" is a concept abstracted from observations of material, or physical, change. As such, the concept "time" is dependent on physical change. This places the eternal, as outside of this conception of time, which is an abstraction produced from, and dependent on, change. That conception of time is the one which Aristotle described in his Physics as the principal meaning for "time", a number which is the measure of change.
However, Aristotle also described a secondary meaning for "time", as something which is measured. This is what we know, and experience as the passing of time. It is what we measure by keeping track of the sun and moon, or the oscillations of a cesium atom.
So in the primary sense of "time", the clock gives us seconds and minutes, and we apply this to perform measurements of change. In the secondary sense of "time", there is a real aspect of nature, which we measure as the passing of time, with the use of observations, or a tool, the clock.
In the secondary sense, the logical priority of the relation between change and time, is reversed from the primary sense. In the primary sense, "time" as the abstraction is logically dependent on the existence of change. In the secondary sense, change, as the activities of physical things, is dependent on the existence of time. The passing of time is logically necessary for physical change to occur.
Now when we understand "time" in the secondary sense, we allow for the possibility of time passing with no physical change occurring, because time is necessary for change, but change is not necessary for time, due to the logical priority of time. This allows for the reality of activity (activity logically requires the passing of time, secondary sense), which is outside of "time" in the primary sense. That is the actuality of the immaterial. Simply put, it is the restriction of the meaning of "time" to the conventional conception of "time", as tied to, or dependent on, physical change, which drives the need to assume an actuality which is "outside of time. When the conception of "time" is rectified to allow for an actuality which is truly immaterial, transcending material change, then we no longer need to think of this actuality as "eternal". It is now within the reality of "time" in the secondary sense, but transcending material change.
Say, my supper is spatial/object-like, locatable, movable, breakable, my experiences thereof occur, are interruptible ?¹??²?, temporal/process-like. Say, stomachs are spatial/object-like, left to right, front to back, and digestion (say, starting with chewing and salivating) occurs, comes and goes, temporal/process-like.
Rocks and bodies are spatial/object-like: left to right, top to bottom, front to back, movable, locatable, breakable (under conservation ?³?), ... Eddies/currents and minds/experiences are temporal/process-like: come and go, occur, interruptible ?????? (interaction/event-causation), ...
Mind isn't in atemporal's vocabulary. If you're talking atemporal, then you're not talking sentience; if you're talking sentience, then you're not talking atemporal. Isn't intelligence something that mind can do (or possess, be capable of)?
Quoting Metaphysician UndercoverSure, not very useful until well defined. Still, I don't see how you could not be talking about an uncaused cause. Immaterial and uncaused. No?
Thank you. I've started it.
I do not think that the "spatial/object-like", " temporal/process-like" distinction is very useful in this context. The issue is that "object" itself implies a temporal duration, a temporal continuity of sameness. To be an "object" is to have a temporal duration. This means that within the proposed concept "spatial/object-like", there is already an implied temporal dependence. The distinction then is reduced to sameness over duration, and change over duration.
Both of these have a temporal aspect, "duration", and a spatial aspect, "same" in one case, "difference" in the other case. "Simultaneity" is a more complex temporal conception, because it is a comparison. This means that there is a necessity of more than one "duration" involved in "simultaneity". And, since temporal duration is already qualified in two distinct ways, sameness over time, and difference over time, "simultaneity" becomes very difficult to grasp. To simplify "simultaneity", and make it a useful concept, we assume "a point in time", and designate the "state-of-being" at that point. All things within that "state-of-being" are simultaneous, as being "at the same time".
Quoting jorndoe
The "point in time", is the basis of the concept of "atemporality". "Time" in its natural existence, as what is passing, (secondary sense, in the prior post), is continuous. The imposition of "a point" is artificial, and since time is not passing at the point, the point is atemporal. This make "simultaneity", and all of the other conceptions which rely on a "point in time" fundamentally atemporal.
So, I don't know what you mean here with "Mind isn't in atemporal's vocabulary". The inverse is what is the case, "atemporal is in mind's vocabulary". It doesn't even make sense to attribute vocabulary to atemporal, rather than to mind, so this paragraph appears extremely confused.
Quoting Patterner
I suggest you reread that. I said "organized" refers to material things. The cause of existence of material things is cannot be material (is immaterial) and therefore cannot be called "organized". "Organized" refers to a spatial ordering, a concept which cannot be applied to the immaterial.
Quoting Patterner
This is a complex issue due to the difference in types of causation. "Efficient cause" refers to physical activities and how they produce effects. If we assume a chain of efficient causes, in time, and look backward in time some will conclude that there is a need for a "first cause". The "first cause" would necessarily be an "uncaused cause" if we maintain consistency in the meaning of "cause", as efficient cause. However, since there are other senses of "cause", such as "final cause", we can say that the "first [efficient] cause" was caused by a different type of cause, i.e. final cause.
This is the way that we understand free will causation. A free will choice sets up a chain of efficient causes designed to produce the desired end. There is a beginning (or end, looking backward in time) to that chain of efficient causes, which we know as the "final cause". The final cause is the intention of the intentional being, the end which is aimed at.
, the point was that mind is temporal/process-like, come and go, occurs, is interruptible, has a more clear temporal demarcation than spatial, ... Where does intelligence fit in?
It does explain that the processes such as the consciousness are made possible by the physical bodies that we possess.
Here is the folly of the civilized humans:
It is us that labeled the consciousness as non-physical before we have an argument for it. Let us admit this much. So how is it that we have arrived at this conclusion without first explaining its relation to the bodies. In fact what's happening here is that we already have a notion of what is non-physical before we have a reasoning for it. And the way we win this claim is by saying "no", "no", "no" to the theory of physicalism. And we feel smug about doing this because the theory of physicalism, according to us, did not even provide an adequate account of the non-physical.
Why would they? We invented the non-physical notion. And yet our senses do not deny that there are physical bodies that we perceive -- with the help of the light, the air, the atmosphere, darkness, and particle invisible to our eyes, the mass, the texture, we come to know what a tree is, a table, a chair, another human being, animals, starts and the sky. Everything we do involves matter.
Quoting Patterner
I am guessing this is a typo. Last time I checked, you are opposed to this.
Quoting Wayfarer
A claim without support.
Quoting Wayfarer
Another claim without support.
Quoting Wayfarer
I don't know what to make of this. Did you read his 4 causes?
Just to be clear, I am not saying that Aristotle came up with physicalism. All I am saying is, if you read his 4 causes, the material cause is there. If you are searching for a sympathetic philosopher to the notion of physicalsim, it is Aristotle.
Quoting Wayfarer
All I see here is a "no". But you didn't provide a convincing argument for why you are opposed to it.
That observation can be made of any number of logical principles and even natural numbers themselves. My belief is that these are discovered not invented, and that this something about the nature of the rational intellect: that it is able to grasp such principles, but that they are not of its own making.
That's false, not all types of organization requires an organizer. Here's an example:
Evenly sized marbles inside a jar are organizedly stacked on top of each other, but there is/was no organizer that stacked up those marbles on top of each other.
That is what I meant. I don't see how we could assign any type of order to something which is completely immaterial. It's a difficult subject to discuss though
Quoting jorndoe
My point was that being-like, or static-like, is just as much temporal as process-like is. But both involve spatial and temporal aspects. So I do not agree that "process-like" has "a more clear temporal demarcation than spatial". Spatial elements are just as necessary to "process" as temporal elements are.
Quoting night912
What do you mean? How did the marbles get into the jar? Isn't putting marbles into a jar an act of organizing them?
I'm not talking about the act of putting marbles into a jar. I'm talking about the marbles are stacked up in an organized way. There's no organizer that stacked up the marbles on top of each other so that they'll stacked up in an organized manner.
And to answer your question, the marbles could have just rolled into the jar from a table that suddenly became uneven.
Quoting L'éléphantNo, I am not opposed to this. These things are mechanical. We've had machines that can do these things for years. The question is why this is accompanied by a subjective experience of it, rather than taking place "in the dark." The physical processes don't need consciousness, and they don't suggest it. What I've read about theories doesn't include anything that explains it. Is it the phi of Integrated Information Theory consciousness? How? How is integrated information consciousness? Why is it not just integrated information?
A nervous system allows for representations/images. Those help the body know what is good and what is harmful. We program robots work the same ability. See the depth of a drop, and stop before falling and being damaged. But that doesn't suggest subjective experience, awareness, or awareness of awareness.
How does a clump of particles knows it is a clump of particles? It's not explained by photons hitting retina, ion channels, and action potentials. Only the vision is. That's explainable, just as liquidity, fight, and life are.
I would love if someone could tell me of a book or site that explains it. I would very much appreciate a summary. Just a brief one, so I'll know what to keep in mind as I read it. This stuff is often far over my head. Like Tse. I feel like I was thrown into the middle of the ocean without a life preserver. Damasio is great. He's passionate, but goes slowly. But, still, how do these physical things accomplish the task?
My thoughts also. Platonism in a general philosophical sense (as distinct from specific discussion of Platos dialogues) upholds the reality of abstractions including numbers and universals. This was mainstream in Western philosophy until the medieval period, when it was eclipsed by nominalism and later by empiricism.
The Greek philosophers believed that such intelligible objects belonged to a higher plane of reality than the material, which humans alone could grasp through the exercise of reason. These are real in a different sense to the objects of sense-perception, being graspable only by the intellect (nous).
Eric Perls book has the background to that.
You are not making sense. If the marbles are in a jar, and you are talking about whether or not there is an organizer who cause them to be in this position, then obviously we must look at "the act of putting marbles into a jar". Or, are you assuming that they've been in that position forever?
Quoting Patterner
This is why the subject is difficult. I believe that if we adhere to a strict definition of "immaterial", and do a thorough analysis of these examples, logic and mathematics, we will find that they are not actually immaterial things. All sorts of logic and mathematics rely on symbols, and symbols are not immaterial. What I think, is that in reality, the purely immaterial does not actually enter into what we call "our experience", or "our consciousness". The purely immaterial has a causal relation to what is consciously present to us, but it is not actually present within the content of our consciousness. What is present within our conscious experience is already a unified material/immaterial dualism, (Aristotelian matter/form), and this is due to the living being's dependence on a body.
So, this is why there is so much disagreement amongst different people, as to whether or not the immaterial is real, and even amongst those who believe it is real, as to how, or what type of existence it has. We only know about the reality of the immaterial through the dual nature (dualist representations) of what is present to us. This is not a pure "immaterial" existence because it is already contaminated by material aspects, so the dual nature of things serves only to demonstrate to us, the reality of the immaterial, but the purely "immaterial" remains unrevealed to us. This is what Aquinas says about God, we know God through His effects, but so long as the human being remains united to a body [and its intellect relies on that body] the human being can never truly know God, as purely immaterial.
Aristotle took up a related issue with the Pythagorean idealists, and certain "Platonists". There had been proposed a divine realm, of eternal circles of the heavenly bodies. The heavens were considered to be aethereal, divine, and eternal. Aristotle showed in "On The Heavens", that a circular motion necessarily involves something moving in that motion, and this thing moving in the circular motion must be material, bodily, and therefore not eternal. Then, in "On the Soul", he criticized these same idealists for saying that the soul, and intellect are immaterial and eternal, but they provide a representation of the soul (eternal circles) which include material aspects.
This is the problem we have with "the immaterial". We have very good evidence and logic to support the reality of the immaterial. However, whenever we produce representations of how the immaterial works within the material world, we assume material elements within our models of the immaterial. This is because that is how the immaterial appears to us, in the combined form of hylomorphism. And if we try to distance the immaterial from the material, we end up with the interaction problem. The subject is extremely difficult, and many are inclined to dismiss the reality of the immaterial altogether, and happily live in Plato's cave of denial. The fact is that we do not well enough understand the nature of time, to properly model the role of the immaterial within our world.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Returning to intelligently intelligent intelligence intelligencing ...
Quoting Sep 22, 2024
What you say makes sense, and was what I was expecting you to say. But I'm thinking, we know a) it is possible for something that is immaterial to be organized, and b) the material that the immaterial caused is organized. Don't these two things present a good case for thinking the immaterial that caused the material was, itself, organized?
Yes, this is the way I see it. That comes at a fairly significant demand, however. I don't believe Newtonian/Cartesian/Comtean/Hobbesian matter or philosophy of nature has the adequate conception of the universe to explain how the non-living even has the potential to give rise to the living.
One of the only places I find myself agreeing with Descartes is that the idea of dead, dumb, inanimate matter somehow generating subjectivity, agency, meaning, poetry, art, philosophy and science is utterly absurd. On that score, Descartes is absolutely right.
I like the method Schelling developed which would eventually become what we know as neutral monism now; you take your concepts of matter, and intelligence/mentality and strip away their respective properties until you get to some sort of basal, common denominator, and build both back up again from there. I think what we get when we do that is neither matter or mind, but just a system with various biases and habits.
Or some basic habitual end-directedness. Material things and mentality are both kinds of system with various habitual ways of behaving, and the key is to figure out what it is about intelligent systems that makes them behave differently. This is the way to a naturalistic but not-reductive philosophy of nature that has intrinsic room for intelligence, subjectivity and agency etc.
I think what Schelling said is that nature is not brutely objective, external "stuff", but the expression of unconscious intelligence, albiet self-organizing. That expression of unconscious intelligence finds its expression as per se intelligence in us. Or, that matter is product and mentality productivity, but it's all the same sort of warp and woof.
You've lost me. Care to explain what you're asking?
Quoting Patterner
No, I do not agree. "Organized" is the outcome, the effect. It does not make sense to use the same word to describe the cause, as is used to describe the effect. This tends toward annihilating the separation, or distinction between the two, making them one and the same thing.
That is the problem I referred to above, what happens when we describe the immaterial in words which are used to describe material things. "Immaterial" is distinctly not material. So describing the immaterial with the same words that we use to describe the material, cannot be correct. That is what has happened to quantum physics. If "the wave function" refers to something immaterial, and "the particle" refers to something material, then when they start describing "particles" as a feature of the wave function they come up with something incoherent.
So I can question the truth of "a) it is possible for something that is immaterial to be organized". Depending on how we relate "immaterial" to "material" it may not be possible for the immaterial to be organized. If we say that the two are absolutely opposite, then clearly it would not be possible for the two to have any shared properties. But that is rather extreme, and it is representative of the interaction problem. For example, temporal and eternal are absolutely opposite.
So the better way is to make them separate categories. As separate categories they might share some properties, and this allows for "a) it is possible for something that is immaterial to be organized". However, b) fails to make the case. That the effect is organized, does not provide the logical necessity required to conclude that it is likely that the cause is organized. We must not allow ourselves to get trapped in this type of word usage because it can be very misleading
You say material had to have been preceded by immaterial, and organized had to have been preceded by un organized. If not, the current would not have been preceded; it would simply be a continuation of. Perhaps I have that right?
First of all, I don't know why that is the assumption. It could be the current is a continuation. if there was anything prior to the Big Bang, the Big Bang erased any empirical evidence of it. So we just don't know.
But let's just say you're right. Qualities of the current could not have existed in the prior. You say this:
Quoting Metaphysician UndercoverThere was no material or organization prior, but there was life? What Is unorganized life? And why assume this particular quality of the current existed in the prior, when no others could have?
Define subjective experience.
Generally speaking, yes that's about right. The "continuation" is commonly known as infinite regress.
Quoting Patterner
I do believe that understanding causes requires that we move beyond simple "empirical evidence" to the employment of logic.
Quoting Patterner
That. I believe, is where the logic leads.
Quoting Patterner
I don't know.
Quoting Patterner
Now that is a good question, and I believe the answer is approached in Aristotle's "On the Soul". For him it was called "the soul", we tend to just call it "life". What happens is that logic leads us toward the need to assume an agential cause of living organisms. Then we put a name to it, "the soul", or "life". Notice that the name does not refer to a "particular quality" at all, it's a name that philosophers have used, as referring to the cause of a body being alive.
The interesting thing is that it doesn't really have a place in our empirical understanding of the organized living body. That is, there is nothing we can point to as life", or "the soul", there is just the living body. There is no property we can attribute to the living body, as "life". So "life" really has no meaning to the physicalist and that is why they can talk about non-living matter becoming living matter, there is no real distinction between the two. And so "life" is not really a "quality of the current". It only really makes sense to talk about "life" as the cause of the body being alive. Even though we commonly talk of "life" as if it is a quality, it really makes no sense because it's not anything we can describe.
We can add to the machine, and give it the ability to detect vibrations in the air, and distinguish different frequencies. Maybe it can detect simultaneous frequencies of 262.63 Hz, 329.63 Hz, and 392 Hz.
But the machine does not see red and blue, and does not hear a C major chord. That is our subjective experience of seeing and hearing those frequencies.
We can hook sensors to our machine and to us, and see where the electricity is running, observing what is happening inside of us as we both detect these things. But we won't see anything in the scans of us that explains our subjective experience that is on top of the detecting that both the machine and we do. There aren't two activities taking place, one for objectively detecting, and one for subjectively experiencing. It would be interesting, and I'm sure we'd think of ways to block the subjective activity, so a person would only detect like a machine. But we don't detect a second activity.
All of the subjective experiences are why there is, as Nagel said, something it is like to be me.
I can't know what it's like to be you, even though there is common ground between us. But I'm willing to believe there's something it's like to be you - for you. You have a point of view.
I really can't know what it's like to be a bat. There is still enough common ground for me to believe there is something it's like to be a bat - for the bat. It has a point of view.
There is nothing it's like to be a boulder - for the boulder. It does not have a point of view.
There is nothing it's like to be our machine - for the machine. It does not have a point of view.
I don't think so, and that is the problem I've been describing to you in the inverse form, (separating the pure immaterial subjective agent, sometimes called soul, or mind, or intellect) from the material object is not possible. We learn from logic, that the two are separable in theory, but in practise they are not. This is because "practise" necessarily involves both.
So our theories about the pure immaterial active agent end up involving material representations (eternal circular motions for example), and our practises, (the experiments meant to represent "machine sensing" for example) incorporate the immaterial aspect of human intention, and the two are never properly separated.
This is the nature of "attention". It incorporates both of the two aspects. The "detection" aspect serves to assist in the synthesis of information 'after-the-fact'. The 'intention' aspect serves to direct the attention, in the role of anticipation, based on a 'prior-to' analysis. The two are separable in principle, as memory of the past, and anticipation of the future, but not in pracise, because separation would annihilate the conscious experience which the separation is a representation of. And so we have all sorts of theories about the prior and the posterior, to account for the reality of this distinction, which cannot be supported by empirical science which relies on the posterior.
But no, I don't think any part of that paragraph is correct.
This is the word use issue I was discussing with Patterner. It doesn't make sense to talk about Intelligence outside of time, because "intelligence" as we know and use the word, refers to a property of material beings which are temporal. However this does not invalidate the logic which indicates that there is a cause of intelligence, which is outside of time. We just do not know how to describe this immaterial cause which is outside of time. But rather than use descriptive terms like "intelligence", it is far better just to name it, as we do with "soul", and "God".
I think we all know, the "God" commonly referred to, is dead.
Notice I used the naming of "God" and "soul" as examples. I would propose something like "the immaterial".
What do you mean about dropping the Platonia-type thing"? The whole point is that we need to account for the reality of the Platonia-type thing, and as I said it's better just to name it than to describe it, because our descriptions rely on empirical based terms. So when a name for the "Platonia-type thing" is employed, over time specific descriptions (you might call this the connotations) become associated with the name, as in the examples of "God" and "soul". Then the best thing to do is to choose a new name to avoid the implied description which has accumulated over the years.