Death

[Sriram]

It renders it spurious though, unnecessary.  If all natural phenomena can be explained through natural processes what is the point in adding in 'intelligent intervention' as well, it solves a problem that isn't there and tasks us with the additional burden of figuring out the nature of this intelligent intervenor.

You could argue that nature itself is intelligent which would be a philosophical point to argue which would revolve around the definition of intelligence.

Ah...you are finally getting there..! Nature itself is intelligent!  Yes...that is what I have been saying all along.  You have too much of the 'external God' baggage in your mind...which is a problem. 

We have already discussed the definition of Intelligence many times. You keep saying that Intelligence is a product of evolution and cannot be its cause.  I don't see why not! 


 

[torridon]

Ah...you are finally getting there..! Nature itself is intelligent!  Yes...that is what I have been saying all along.  You have too much of the 'external God' baggage in your mind...which is a problem. 
 

An 'intervention' implies something from outside. If it is nature itself that is intelligent then it would be confusing to call it an intervention.

[torridon]

We have already discussed the definition of Intelligence many times. You keep saying that Intelligence is a product of evolution and cannot be its cause.  I don't see why not! 
 

Isn't that circular ?  How can something be it's own cause ?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It renders it spurious though, unnecessary.  If all natural phenomena can be explained through natural processes what is the point in adding in 'intelligent intervention' as well,

Because we don't know whether nature goes on forever or whether it is created whether by something other or self created if that is possible in nature.

[Stranger]

Because we don't know whether nature goes on forever or whether it is created whether by something other or self created if that is possible in nature.

An argument from ignorance to start the day...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ah...you are finally getting there..! Nature itself is intelligent!  Yes...that is what I have been saying all along.  You have too much of the 'external God' baggage in your mind...which is a problem. 

We have already discussed the definition of Intelligence many times. You keep saying that Intelligence is a product of evolution and cannot be its cause.  I don't see why not! 


 

Internal external is irrelevant to god of course.But I feel that eastern religion ignores the I thou
 experience and easily slips into the I ego modality.

[torridon]

Because we don't know whether nature goes on forever or whether it is created whether by something other or self created if that is possible in nature.

If the question is "how did intelligence arise ?", then the answer "because something intelligent created it" is clearly circular; a cop out that fails to address the question. That answer demonstrates a preference for avoidance over engagement.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If the question is "how did intelligence arise ?", then the answer "because something intelligent created it" is clearly circular; a cop out that fails to address the question. That answer demonstrates a preference for avoidance over engagement.

Does  intelligence have to arise though?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If the question is "how did intelligence arise ?", then the answer "because something intelligent created it" is clearly circular; a cop out that fails to address the question. That answer demonstrates a preference for avoidance over engagement.

Intelligent things can create intelligent things though.

If this thread were a theme park ride would you meet the height restriction.

[ippy]

ippy,

I am already in the 22nd century!! 

You still think I don't accept evolution do you?!   Clearly you don't understand my posts at all....after all these years too!! 

Oh..well...never mind.....

There must be something wrong somewhere?

I've doubt I'll be winning the booker prize this year or any other year, even so generally I can make myself understood, having said that lot, if I'm as you imply not understanding your posts, it's obvious to me that someone isn't making their case very well, and with certainty wont be getting a booker prize.

Shakers post 121 on this thread maybe not an exactly similar but a similar conclusion to the one I have taken about your recent references to ID before making a reply to this ID thing of yours and au contraire to your post someone isn't doing a very good job of making themselves understood and in this case it isn't me.

Regards ippy   

[jeremyp]

Intelligent things can create intelligent things though.

Can they? Well, clearly it's trivially true in the sense that all existing intelligent humans were created by other intelligent humans. But I don't think that really counts because we don't really know how the process of human development allows intelligence to arise.

Other than biological reproduction, have you got any undisputed examples of intelligence creating intelligence?

[Sriram]

Isn't that circular ?  How can something be it's own cause ?

Why? Intelligent humans create intelligent robots, don't we?! What is AI all about?

[torridon]

Why? Intelligent humans create intelligent robots, don't we?! What is AI all about?

That argument doesn't work for a first cause though.  The first intelligent thing could not have been created by a prior intelligence.

[Sriram]

That argument doesn't work for a first cause though.  The first intelligent thing could not have been created by a prior intelligence.

I am not discussing first cause or second cause. You are digressing.  I am merely saying that Intelligence can create Intelligence.

Just as humans have created intelligent machines, we could also have been created by some form of Intelligence. It is not as far fetched as you make it out to be. 

And the process of evolution does not conflict with that idea, as I have discussed many times.

[ekim]

That argument doesn't work for a first cause though.  The first intelligent thing could not have been created by a prior intelligence.

I think this was discussed previously and it's probably a waste of time repeating it but that's what certain India schools of thought subscribe to. Intelligence (Sattwa) is one of three innate qualities present in nature or 'prakriti' as it is called.  The others are rajas a force of change and tamas a force of stability.  Sattwa attempts to harmonise the other two.  Homeostasis and metabolism would be examples of Sattwa in action in the human body.

[Stranger]

I am not discussing first cause or second cause. You are digressing.  I am merely saying that Intelligence can create Intelligence.

Just as humans have created intelligent machines, we could also have been created by some form of Intelligence.

But that doesn't explain the existence of intelligence; it requires some pre-existing intelligence. Evolution explains the existence of intelligence without requiring it to exist in the first place.

It is not as far fetched as you make it out to be. 

It is far fetch because it's just a story with no supporting evidence or reasoning, like Eric the invisible magic elf.

And the process of evolution does not conflict with that idea, as I have discussed many times.

The process of evolution is also in no need of it, which emphasises that it's just a baseless story.

[ekim]

Evolution explains the existence of intelligence without requiring it to exist in the first place.

Perhaps you could explain how intelligence comes into existence via evolution, what it is and how it is detected.  This might clear some misunderstandings.

[Enki]

I am not discussing first cause or second cause. You are digressing.  I am merely saying that Intelligence can create Intelligence.

Just as humans have created intelligent machines, we could also have been created by some form of Intelligence. It is not as far fetched as you make it out to be. 

And the process of evolution does not conflict with that idea, as I have discussed many times.

I would agree that it is possible for intelligence to create intelligence, and, yes, it is possible that life was created on this planet by some form of intelligence, and, yes, the process of evolution would not conflict with that scenario. However there are several problems with it.

First is that even if we accept that life was created by this so 'intelligence'(without any corroborating evidence at all), there is again no evidence at all that it had any further input, and, furthermore, no reason for this 'intelligence' to have any further input because  evolution by natural selection does not need any 'intelligence' in its explanations.

Second, if, after all this, we accepted that this 'intelligence' guided evolution in some way, then we would fairly quickly come to strong conclusions as to its ineptitude and incompetence.

Third, even if the idea of intelligence creating intelligence was accepted, you still have the question as to where this intelligence came from, and how did it develop its intelligence unless it be by the process of evolution.

If you wish to believe that some sort of intelligence is responsible for human intelligence then so be it. However, bearing in mind the points raised above, and unless some evidence arises to support your ideas, I do not see any reason to treat them as any more than conjectures on your part.

[ekim]

I would agree that it is possible for intelligence to create intelligence, and, yes, it is possible that life was created on this planet by some form of intelligence, and, yes, the process of evolution would not conflict with that scenario. However there are several problems with it.

First is that even if we accept that life was created by this so 'intelligence'(without any corroborating evidence at all), there is again no evidence at all that it had any further input, and, furthermore, no reason for this 'intelligence' to have any further input because  evolution by natural selection does not need any 'intelligence' in its explanations.

Second, if, after all this, we accepted that this 'intelligence' guided evolution in some way, then we would fairly quickly come to strong conclusions as to its ineptitude and incompetence.

Third, even if the idea of intelligence creating intelligence was accepted, you still have the question as to where this intelligence came from, and how did it develop its intelligence unless it be by the process of evolution.

If you wish to believe that some sort of intelligence is responsible for human intelligence then so be it. However, bearing in mind the points raised above, and unless some evidence arises to support your ideas, I do not see any reason to treat them as any more than conjectures on your part.

As regards your first point, the particular 'intelligence' in question is ever present in all life forms and is continuous as life forms change.  Possibly it is seen as the selector in natural selection.
As regards your second point, I don't think the process is seen as guided as if there is a master plan.  The Sanskrit word used is Lila which is a kind of creative play.
As regards your third point, intelligence (Sattwa) is seen as ever present, as mass and energy might be seen, and is simple in nature and doesn't develop complexity in itself but facilitates complexity in the formal world.
I doubt whether any scientific evidence can be produced but in the context of self awareness it is seen as an ideal to foster so that harmony is improved upon.

[Enki]

Perhaps you could explain how intelligence comes into existence via evolution, what it is and how it is detected.  This might clear some misunderstandings.

Rather than ask Stranger, perhaps it might be more appropriate if you first asked Sriram how intelligence comes into existence without evolution, what it is and how it is detected. After all it was Sriram who started the ball rolling in Post 111. This might clear some misunderstandings.

[Enki]

As regards your first point, the particular 'intelligence' in question is ever present in all life forms and is continuous as life forms change.  Possibly it is seen as the selector in natural selection.
As regards your second point, I don't think the process is seen as guided as if there is a master plan.  The Sanskrit word used is Lila which is a kind of creative play.
As regards your third point, intelligence (Sattwa) is seen as ever present, as mass and energy might be seen, and is simple in nature and doesn't develop complexity in itself but facilitates complexity in the formal world.
I doubt whether any scientific evidence can be produced but in the context of self awareness it is seen as an ideal to foster so that harmony is improved upon.

These are all conjectures which are descriptions of beliefs.  I have no problem with anyone believing in such things but I'm afraid I see no evidence for them, whereas evolution by natural selection has a great deal of evidence and needs none of the ideas you expound for the process to work.

As regards your last point about self awareness, I'm sure you are right. I have no problem with that. Of course there are many other ways in which one can become more self aware, more understanding of others, more in harmony with oneself and the world as I'm sure you will agree.

[ekim]

These are all conjectures which are descriptions of beliefs.  I have no problem with anyone believing in such things but I'm afraid I see no evidence for them, whereas evolution by natural selection has a great deal of evidence and needs none of the ideas you expound for the process to work.

As regards your last point about self awareness, I'm sure you are right. I have no problem with that. Of course there are many other ways in which one can become more self aware, more understanding of others, more in harmony with oneself and the world as I'm sure you will agree.

Yes, I agree.  Let's hope there is enough harmonising intelligence on the planet whatever its source.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, I agree.  Let's hope there is enough harmonising intelligence on the planet whatever its source.

What does 'harmonising intelligence' mean?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That argument doesn't work for a first cause though.  The first intelligent thing could not have been created by a prior intelligence.

But apparently an argument against first cause is the possibility of something not having a beginning isn't it? That is either 'the universe' or something else. You cannot grant the universe being around for ever and deny the possibility of that attribute in something else.

The problem is there is nothing in the universe observed which is not derived. If you think that is a bad argument it is precisely the same one Jeremy P is using to argue against non biological intelligence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can they? Well, clearly it's trivially true in the sense that all existing intelligent humans were created by other intelligent humans.

I am not talking about that. I am talking about biological intelligences creating machine intelligences...and by extension, machine intelligences creating other machine intelligence in ways that owe more to maths and nothing to biological evolution...and even perhaps machine intelligence creating biological intelligences in non biological evolutionary ways.


It seems to me that the more intelligent something is the more maths it can emulate. Therefore is it strictly true to say that intelligence can only be an evolved biological thing when it clearly revolves around the emulation of maths?