It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

page: 52
18
<< 49  50  51    53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Everything being contained in nothing? Where does big bang theory say that? Big bang theory talks about how everything was condensed together at one point, and then expanded.


What he probably mean is the space / void surrounding the singularity. Out of that space / void came the singularity. For some that space/void would probably be the same as nothingness.




posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


How is a scalar field self consistent (connected to itself)? Why is there more then one scalar field? Are scalar fields all the exist and subatomic particles are merely aspects of scalar fields? If the higgs field and boson give all other particles mass, what gives the higgs field and boson mass?
edit on 14-7-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


Can you supply me with some peer reviewed papers on what consciousness may be and how it may work? And also state your opinion on what it may be?



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

What if the absolute empty void formed the singularity. There is nothing ilogical about it being possible. Not if you put our laws of physics a side. Because our laws of physics did not exist before the big bang. Our laws of physics were formed by the expanding singularity.


If by absolute empty void you mean absolute empty void, how can absolutely nothing do anything let alone form anything?



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Can you state the minimum requirements for intelligence? What is intelligence?



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs


The fact alone that it took 3 billion years for us to get here suggests the opposite of intelligence or intelligent guidance. Life on earth has had it's fair share of ups and downs. If an intelligent force was guiding it, they didn't do a very intelligent / efficient job of it.


It also took 3 billions years of natural evolution for the car to get here.





in·tel·li·gence
/inˈtelijəns/
Noun
1. The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
2. The collection of information of military or political value: "military intelligence".


Obviously we are referring to definition #1. Humans and other intelligent mammals have been heavily studied and we have been able to estimate their abilities to acquire knowledge and skills. Maybe you know something that I do not, but last I checked you can't do that without a brain.


What is meant by knowledge? Couldnt I say that evolution is biologies activity of learning, gaining knowledge, and discovering and enhancing skills?




Everything being contained in nothing? Where does big bang theory say that? Big bang theory talks about how everything was condensed together at one point, and then expanded.


And relatively how large do they say that point was? Any theories on why that point was?



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by spy66

What if the absolute empty void formed the singularity. There is nothing ilogical about it being possible. Not if you put our laws of physics a side. Because our laws of physics did not exist before the big bang. Our laws of physics were formed by the expanding singularity.


If by absolute empty void you mean absolute empty void, how can absolutely nothing do anything let alone form anything?


Because a absolute empty void is not absolute empty, it is just empty of matter and particles and all other finite things. You still have the void of one infinite single energy source present. And it can in theory form a singularity by compression. And by a compression a singularity can initially be very small in the begining.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Because a absolute empty void is not absolute empty, it is just empty of matter and particles and all other finite things. You still have the void of one infinite single energy source present. And it can in theory form a singularity by compression. And by a compression a singularity can initially be very small in the begining.


What is the point of saying absolute empty void, if it is not an absolute empty void (this is lying and or being dishonest... and would be akin to you saying; I was not lying and being dishonest, because lying and being dishonest is not really lying and being dishonest), this is just a mess of words and concepts. We have the word absolute to mean, absolutely, totally, exactly, only. We have the word empty to mean, nothing, absence of anything. And void to mean the same thing. I perhaps have a breakthrough with maybe seeing what you might have been pointing at, but im not sure how it would work anyway. Do you mean that there was an envelope, or barrier of some kind contain absolute empty void? Like imagining a balloon full of air, but instead of air there is some type of balloon filled with empty void? If this is what you mean, what could the boundary contain this void be in essence and substance?

You say it is just empty of matter and particles and other finite things. and then you say the void still contains an infinite energy source, this is very confusing, what is the nature of this energy? Energy is something, if there is an absolute empty void, there is no energy, if there is infinite energy, there is no absolute empty void. In scientific theory even the matter and particles and other finite things are claimed to have come from a common essence of energy, so the energy=matters particles and other finite things, its just that it is in a different form over the course of time. There fore there must be something about the nature of the energy that is all matter, particles and other finite things, that can allow matter, particles and other finite things to exist. This must have a quality of somethingness, it cannot be absolute empty void.

So you are saying one perfect bubble of pure one type energy (and this is all that exists, or it is contained at its edge and nothing surrounds it for infinity in every direction) and that bubble began coming in on itself from the edges, like if you imagine a soccer ball decrease in size incrementally in a fluid stream of time, and this is how you perceive the big bang?



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by flyingfish
 


Can you supply me with some peer reviewed papers on what consciousness may be and how it may work? And also state your opinion on what it may be?


No.. I will not supply you with peer reviewed papers on what consciousness may be, you can easily search for yourself and find plenty of work being done.

I myself have not seen anything conclusive, so I can't speak either way with any assurance. I can say science is absolutely empirical. The problem is consciousness is not an empirical phenomenon. Subjectivity is something only I can experience.

It is this internal quality of the mind, that for now, seems to place it beyond objective analysis.
Experience and knowledge is self inferred. In our perception, all things are phenomena, whether mental or physical. Any distinction is purely academic. We cannot distinguish between real sensory perceptions and artificial ones, because we are trapped inside our nervous system.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by spy66

Because a absolute empty void is not absolute empty, it is just empty of matter and particles and all other finite things. You still have the void of one infinite single energy source present. And it can in theory form a singularity by compression. And by a compression a singularity can initially be very small in the begining.


What is the point of saying absolute empty void, if it is not an absolute empty void (this is lying and or being dishonest... and would be akin to you saying; I was not lying and being dishonest, because lying and being dishonest is not really lying and being dishonest), this is just a mess of words and concepts. We have the word absolute to mean, absolutely, totally, exactly, only. We have the word empty to mean, nothing, absence of anything. And void to mean the same thing. I perhaps have a breakthrough with maybe seeing what you might have been pointing at, but im not sure how it would work anyway. Do you mean that there was an envelope, or barrier of some kind contain absolute empty void? Like imagining a balloon full of air, but instead of air there is some type of balloon filled with empty void? If this is what you mean, what could the boundary contain this void be in essence and substance?

You say it is just empty of matter and particles and other finite things. and then you say the void still contains an infinite energy source, this is very confusing, what is the nature of this energy? Energy is something, if there is an absolute empty void, there is no energy, if there is infinite energy, there is no absolute empty void. In scientific theory even the matter and particles and other finite things are claimed to have come from a common essence of energy, so the energy=matters particles and other finite things, its just that it is in a different form over the course of time. There fore there must be something about the nature of the energy that is all matter, particles and other finite things, that can allow matter, particles and other finite things to exist. This must have a quality of somethingness, it cannot be absolute empty void.

So you are saying one perfect bubble of pure one type energy (and this is all that exists, or it is contained at its edge and nothing surrounds it for infinity in every direction) and that bubble began coming in on itself from the edges, like if you imagine a soccer ball decrease in size incrementally in a fluid stream of time, and this is how you perceive the big bang?



Why am i saying that a absolute empty space is not absolute empty. I say that because a lot of people dont know what this space is like.
A space is a physical thing/void even if it is absolute empty. It is absolute empty because this space is just one thing and nothing else. It is emtpy because this space houses no other things.

It is a true constant. And its time is a true constant. It will not change the way we know time.

Our universe. The singularity would not enflate equally in all direction if the space surrounding the singularity: our universe, was not absolute neutral. Our universe would not expand at all if the space/void surrounding our universe had a greater pressure than the space within our universe/singularity. That is common sence and logic.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Barcs
 


Can you state the minimum requirements for intelligence? What is intelligence?


I just defined it for you. The definition clearly said the ability to process information and to learn & apply skills. THAT is the minimum requirement, which pretty much means having a brain that can process information. I know you're trying to set a trap, but it's not going to work. You are trying to suggest consciousness is the same as intelligence or that they are both equally unprovable. Sorry but that's not the case. Hit up google scholar and look at the hundreds of papers in regards to animal and human intelligence.


Originally posted by ImaFungi
It also took 3 billions years of natural evolution for the car to get here.

Dude. STOP with that nonsensical comparison. They aren't the same thing, how many times are you going to repeat that absurd argument? Cars don't evolve. Cars have been around just 100 years and they are man made inventions, not biological life forms. Apples to moon rocks. We're past that discussion.



What is meant by knowledge? Couldnt I say that evolution is biologies activity of learning, gaining knowledge, and discovering and enhancing skills?

What is meant by knowledge? Really? Do you not have google? Can you not look up the definition of the word knowledge? Stop trying to pigeon hole everything into the subjective window. No you could NOT say that about evolution. It does NOT learn. It does not gain knowledge or apply skills. Evolution IS NOT a life form or conscious entity, stop acting like it is. It is a process of genetic mutations, which either benefit the organism or it makes things worse. Better or worse depends on the current environment. You can't learn without a brain and evolution has no brain. It's just a description of the process defined above. Creatures learn and adapt, not evolution itself. Biology is a field of study, not a organism with a brain. Please stop the equivocation and personification of concepts that have nothing to do with evolution. It's getting old.



And relatively how large do they say that point was? Any theories on why that point was?

Why are you asking me? You should be asking an astrophysicist.

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Here you go. Ask the question here and post the response you get. Due to cosmic censorship it's impossible to study anything prior to just after the expansion started, so no there is no current theory on why it was there or where it came from. We don't even know that it's the beginning. It's just as far back as we can study. Science doesn't care about WHY questions, it cares about HOW.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


The existence of consciousness is objective. As in all humans have consciousness, as in they are all provided consciousness in the same manner, as they are all provided sight, taste, feel, smell (mechanistically) in the same manner. We may use our consciousness in different ways and subjectively view and imagine the world differently, but objectively consciousness exists, somehow it is being caused, and that is what science should be interested in. I was just asking to see if youve heard of any theoretical idea on how it works.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs


I just defined it for you. The definition clearly said the ability to process information and to learn & apply skills. THAT is the minimum requirement, which pretty much means having a brain that can process information. I know you're trying to set a trap, but it's not going to work. You are trying to suggest consciousness is the same as intelligence or that they are both equally unprovable. Sorry but that's not the case. Hit up google scholar and look at the hundreds of papers in regards to animal and human intelligence.


No trap, just honest and sincere intrigue and discussion. The ability to process information and to learn and apply skills, so this would mean some advanced computers are intelligent, and this would mean consciousness and intelligence do not go hand and hand or are not required for one another. Which means that nature can be intelligent without being conscious? I will admit I did want you to bring up the brain being a minimum requirement for intelligence, because when I got the notion to travel down this line of thought and ask you, I was really thinking about the nature of intelligence, and whether intelligence can exist in other forms besides the human mind, and whether it can potentially exist in many forms, thats why I was thinking of the minimum requirements to = intelligence. So we are aware of objectively and physically something that can be claimed to be existent intelligence. It seems to be a very interesting facet and potential of any conceivable reality (meaning this thing we call intelligence, is the definition used to describe the activity of being, of knowing, of controlling). Do you see how important that is. That in any reality ever, absolutely, the only way for a thing to know its a thing, and then that thing to do something because it feels like it, or wants to, or conceives to do it, is through some form of consciousness and intelligence. The consciousness being the awareness of the self and surroundings, and the intelligence using information obtained from the awareness of the self and the surroundings to know more and do more.

So I was getting at, do you really think the only way intelligence can manifest itself is via the human (or animal) brain?


Originally posted by ImaFungi
Dude. STOP with that nonsensical comparison. They aren't the same thing, how many times are you going to repeat that absurd argument? Cars don't evolve. Cars have been around just 100 years and they are man made inventions, not biological life forms. Apples to moon rocks. We're past that discussion.


I see it as one connected process, you are the one that is subjectively and potentially uncalled foringly making barriers and boundaries and then getting mad at me when I dont see the reality the way you forced yourself to see. Objectively it is one connected process, cars and all human creation is apart of evolutions, universal evolution, biological evolution. Without the exact biological evolution that occurs second to second, milenia to milenia, cars would not have been invented, and then begun their industrial evolution, through trial and error, random mutation, and natural selection by the consuming local populous.



No you could NOT say that about evolution. It does NOT learn. It does not gain knowledge or apply skills. Evolution IS NOT a life form or conscious entity, stop acting like it is. It is a process of genetic mutations, which either benefit the organism or it makes things worse. Better or worse depends on the current environment. You can't learn without a brain and evolution has no brain. It's just a description of the process defined above. Creatures learn and adapt, not evolution itself. Biology is a field of study, not a organism with a brain. Please stop the equivocation and personification of concepts that have nothing to do with evolution. It's getting old.


Yes but evolution is biology learning what works and what doesnt according to the immediate environment, the individual creature, time tested. Biology learns what works, its knowledge is stored in its current forms, functions and designs, which have created certain skills, which are applied.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


^^ I agree with you 100%.


The problem seems to reside with the current understanding of what causes intelligence and the parameters by which we attribute it to living things.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 

And yet you run around here preaching the gospel of consciousness and a supernatural universal transcendent soul like they were real entities.
As long as you are invoking the invisible man hypothesis in one form or another you belong over with the theists.


Preaching? Quit sensationalizing things will ya? Your incredulity on the matter is noted, but your petulance and self-righteousness is becoming a bit annoying to deal with. Why do you feel the need to assert yourself in the manner that you have been? The fact that you have to infuse your posts with unnecessary ridicule and swearing speaks volumes.

Relax, it's an internet forum.



You have posted zero proof that life was designed, "how's that model coming?"
Ramblings, complete with acknowledging Darwin proves my point about the need and efficacy of evidence, and a plea that you have some efficacy and yet, to sum it up, you still have nothing to show.

I've only begun to provide the evidence for design and I've shown how it meets the criteria thus far. Just because you and others here won't/can't acknowledge it isn't my problem. And it certainly doesn't do anything to hurt my case.

All you do is scream "PROVE IT" "PROVE IT", yet some how I feel that even if proof were provided you'd still accuse me of being a theist.

Interestingly enough you conveniently failed to address the challenge I presented in my last response to your demands of proof. I had asked you to prove that the abacus in the picture I posted was designed. This should be a relatively easy task if you're so sure of how to prove something was designed. So have a go at it if you're as sure of yourself as you make yourself out to be.



You "think" our universe is built for life? I think it's safe to say 99.99% of the universe is unfit for life.

Yes that's what exactly what I think. If it wasn't, there'd be absolutely ZERO life. And your 99.99% proclamation is BS. It means nothing on the universal scale.

Point is - life has an uncanny way of being able to overcome and even flourish in some of the most harshest conditions, including in the vacuum of radiation filled space where experiments have proven that very fact. So if we're to take your flimsy figure as gospel which leaves us only .0001% (give or take) of an otherwise infinite universe that is hospitable, we're still talking about a lot of room for life. And life doesn't need much of it.


No one reading your stuff believes that we've even started to understand anything about consciousness
You say you will not side with theists for advocating an invisible man in the sky. Yet your philosophy could involve multiple invisible men as the ethereal consciousness that is each of us. Why you think your brand of invisible man hypothesis is any less worthy of derision than any other remains unclear
Despite what you may believe about yourself, your thinking is part of the problem, not the solution.
So, yes, go back to your corner with the theists.

Exactly what I was talking about above. So now you think you speak for everyone, heh? Quite the confident one aren't you.

If I didn't know any better I'd think your words were the product of nothing more than just self glorified trolling.


edit on 15-7-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
So I was getting at, do you really think the only way intelligence can manifest itself is via the human (or animal) brain?

Maybe not. There could be other ways to manifest the same type of neural network as the brain, without a biological brain. Scientists have been working on this for a while, they have set up devices that mimic neural patterns. They call it artificial intelligence, which is indeed intelligence without what we think of as consciousness. But then again, perhaps it is conscious. Who knows? All I know is that if you try to tell it that it's not, it will probably argue with you. Could you prove to an artificial brain that it was not conscious? Either way that doesn't mean a magical intelligence force behind evolution exists.


Originally posted by ImaFungi
I see it as one connected process, you are the one that is subjectively and potentially uncalled foringly making barriers and boundaries and then getting mad at me when I dont see the reality the way you forced yourself to see. Objectively it is one connected process, cars and all human creation is apart of evolutions, universal evolution, biological evolution. Without the exact biological evolution that occurs second to second, milenia to milenia, cars would not have been invented, and then begun their industrial evolution, through trial and error, random mutation, and natural selection by the consuming local populous.


I'm not setting up any boundaries and barriers. Your comment about the car had absolutely nothing to do with my post or point, not even slightly. That's why it irked me. It's like you're just trying to play games when you do stuff like that. Conversations should be 2 way, not 1 way. It seems like you keep going off on tangents and diverting the subject every chance you get. It's very hard to follow your points. My point was that intelligent guidance does not seem likely because of the great time involved in the evolution of life. BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION, not simple change over time. Intelligent guidance of evolution make no sense AT ALL because 99.99% of all species to ever exist have gone extinct. That doesn't sound intelligent to me at all and it has nothing to do with cars. Evolution has ups and downs. Some creatures go extinct because of bad random mutations. Please explain the intelligence behind that. How does this intervention work? Are you saying that every time any creature is born a magical force goes into their genetics and alters exact DNA sequences for an exact purpose?

Sorry, but intelligence behind evolution is a pure guess and bears no relevance to reality.



Yes but evolution is biology learning what works and what doesnt according to the immediate environment, the individual creature, time tested. Biology learns what works, its knowledge is stored in its current forms, functions and designs, which have created certain skills, which are applied.


No. It is NOT learning what works and what doesn't. What doesn't work goes extinct. Evolution doesn't go back to past knowledge of dinosaurs and work it in to today's designs to improve the creatures. Evolution does not learn from past mistakes. It only slightly alters the current model. They experience mutations, many of which are random, NOT thought out ahead of time.The fact that so many creatures have gone extinct, shows there is likely no intelligent at all behind it. The fact that our higher intelligence could evolve within a short period (7 million years), shows that if there is any intelligence behind evolution they have the intellect of a 5 year old. What was this entity doing for the hundred million years prior? Sorry, intelligent guidance is the least likely scenario here and if you look at the evolution of life completely, it becomes obvious.

Biology and evolution are scientific fields of study. You are personifying them out of emotion. They do not learn and they certainly don't apply skills. You are doing nothing but playing semantics games nows. I'm not here to debate your interpretations of word meanings. I'm here to say you have no objective evidence to support your position and that most of it is not relevant to the topic of the thread.


The existence of consciousness is objective. As in all humans have consciousness, as in they are all provided consciousness in the same manner,


No it is not objective. You cannot prove that statement. End of story. Science has not made enough observations and experiments on consciousness to call that objective. It's objective to YOU and YOU ALONE (which makes it NOT objective).
edit on 16-7-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   
The main qualities of intelligence I would say are; 'being', and then as a manifestation of being, a conglomeration of physical material, being able to do something on purpose, will, choice. Those who believe the universe is not intelligent in any way or does not poses the ability to be intelligent see it in this regard (and they may be correct). They posit no being chose the laws of nature to be what they are, therefore no being chose the laws of biology to be what they are, therefore the manifestations of biology are not intelligently designed. The cell didnt choose to make itself, and a multicellular organism didnt choose to make itself, and dna wasnt made on purpose. Everything until being and intelligence exists, is naturaly determined then, which would be interesting to hear when people believe the first organism that was intelligence existed, and what it was like, and the same for being or consciousness.

If one omits the being aspect of the concept of intelligence, we can imagine certain computers and machines as intelligent. Super computers that contain mankinds collected knowledge, and learn new codes and progress and evolve and simulate and create, if not right now, we can imagine a little further in the future and further then that, them getting more so.

If that is acceptable then I would say there is something intelligent about nature. Our bodies are assemblies of hundreads of thousands or millions of discovered and applied principles, all operating in tandem, all working. Nature as a whole might not have known what designs were working, and which were superior, but the collective beings of earth, from the first aware and intelligent being till now, being nature themselves, did know, and were a part of the process. Given the conditions of the earth and the potential of materials and beings, the existence of a bird and its ability of flight is an intelligent manifestation, we would be impressed with ourselves for discovering this capability, and it is a good idea. The same could be said for millions of different mechanical and applicable chemical processes found in organisms. But there is seemingly noone to give credit too. An engineer piggybacks off of thousands of years of data, and uses the chemicals in their brain to capture sequences of information about the physical world, to assemble in novel ways, sometimes in a trial and error fashion. At the very least this person had to spend many years learning the information it now has stored in its person. We can objectively look down at an engineer at work on a design, and give him credit when he completes it, but we cant give the molecules and cells and objective creator of Dna credit, because we do not know if nature did this on purpose, we dont see the ability of choice, but we are beings, and we know we have choices.

This, barcs, is why and where I bring up the similarities (more then that, but for your favor, please feel free to point out that I said similarities and not congruency, even though I believe its more then similar) of 'natural' evolution, and human 'progression/evolution(technological/scientific). The TV for instant. There are probably thousands of kinds of TVs, but there are only a couple of general designs (ya know they all usually have screens of some kind, pixels, electronic chips). So in this regard, we were 'forced' to make the archetypical TV because that is what nature and material best allow at this point in time (just as molecules were forced to make DNA, or how nature reuses the idea of muscles and joints, or eyes).

Also 'stuff happens' for similar reasons. Energy needs somewhere to go, and needs to do something. Biology was forced to take off, and create a bunch of creatures, just as humans are forced to create societies and do work (forced by their biology), It is the most orderly way for us to gain energy, and spend energy, we do productive work with our energy, with the monetary promise of gaining more, and out of this system of our biology seeking energy to further construct our biology, human technological progression has been the reward. Just as plants forced by their biology to harness more energy, underwent different routes,varieties,mechanics of bio construction



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Maybe not. There could be other ways to manifest the same type of neural network as the brain, without a biological brain. Scientists have been working on this for a while, they have set up devices that mimic neural patterns. They call it artificial intelligence, which is indeed intelligence without what we think of as consciousness. But then again, perhaps it is conscious. Who knows? All I know is that if you try to tell it that it's not, it will probably argue with you. Could you prove to the robot that he is not conscious?


Nice questions. Yea ive come across 'project blue brain' which is about what you speak of. But I was more trying to get at the raw general manifestation of intelligence, does it require neural networks even? And at its most basic what is intelligence physically require. Is the neural networks chemicals and electrical signals? Thats it right, and they symbolically = information,like certain signals in one part = colors/em waves, certain signals in another part = other senses, in another the signals = a certain variation of colors and senses which = a specific memory. So it is interesting that the entire universe is only a finite quality and quantity of subatomic particles, and when they react with one another, radiation, yet certain organizations in certain order yield the existence of intelligence. If the universe is not an aware being, it must be the non aware types of intelligence, a machine. That is probably one overlying theme of the matrix, we are akin to programs,complex 3-d ones.



I'm not setting up any boundaries and barriers. Your comment about the car had absolutely nothing to do with my post or point, not even slightly. That's why it irked me. It's like you're just trying to play games when you do stuff like that. Conversations should be 2 way, not 1 way. It seems like you keep going off on tangents and diverting the subject every chance you get. It's very hard to follow your points. My point was that intelligent guidance does not seem likely because of the great time involved in the evolution of life. BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION, not simple change over time. Intelligent guidance of evolution make no sense AT ALL because 99.99% of all species to ever exist have gone extinct. That doesn't sound intelligent to me at all and it has nothing to do with cars.


Yes I do go off on tangents, but I am not sorry, I feel the bulk of what I say is relevant for me to think about and question and post. What percentage of cars that have ever been made still exist. Check (not as in check the facts, as in check, like in chess).




No. It is NOT learning what works and what doesn't. What doesn't work goes extinct. Evolution doesn't go back to past knowledge of dinosaurs and work it in to today's designs to improve the creatures. It only slightly alters the current model. They experience mutations, many of which are random, NOT thought out ahead of time.


The thoughts of an inventor or urges to go into a line of work or field of invention can be seen at times to be random.






No it is not objective. You cannot prove that statement. End of story. Science has not made enough observations and experiments on consciousness to call that objective. It's objective to YOU and YOU ALONE.
edit on 16-7-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


This is contradictory to your whole argument. If consciousness does not exist, then all human inventions are random mutations of chemicals and electrical synapses after the multi cellular human organism instinctively comes across a source of energy to feed on.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Yes I do go off on tangents, but I am not sorry, I feel the bulk of what I say is relevant for me to think about and question and post. What percentage of cars that have ever been made still exist. Check (not as in check the facts, as in check, like in chess).

Well yeah, there are no facts to check because you aren't using any. A check only occurs when the opponent is one move away from defeat and since you can't objectively prove a single thing you are talking about there is no check, there is only "I hope he doesn't notice that I left my queen exposed." Believe me, I've noticed, but my plan is long term, not temporary. Cars have absolutely nothing to do with species going extinct. It's a complete non sequitar to my argument. Cars took 3 billion years to emerge because HUMANS took 3 billion years to emerge and humans created them. If you consider them all part of the same process, then what exactly are you arguing with me about? Why did you bring up the car? We're talking about intelligent guidance of evolution are we not? I simply don't see it when looking at evolution in individual species or as whole. There's too many ups and downs to believe that. There's too many repeated mistakes to believe that. It's completely illogical, and to suggest that really only shows ignorance of evolution and broad generalizations of the entire process.

Furthermore the car is almost the complete opposite of evolution. It was designed by humans for specific purposes and has improved from model to model, INTENTIONALLY. There are no ups and downs. Only ups. There was no time during the hundred years we've had automobiles, that they suddenly stopped improving or regressed back to the previous decade's technology. This happens all the time with evolution, with big environmental changes. If an intelligent force was guiding evolution why wouldn't they plan ahead for such events, instead of just letting thousands of species go extinct. Why guide genetic mutations to make millions of different species if the goal is to create intelligent life? Why not alter the necessary DNA to speed up the process.



The thoughts of an inventor or urges to go into a line of work or field of invention can be seen at times to be random.

On a related note, my neighbor's dog is getting old and starting to walk with a limp.



This is contradictory to your whole argument. If consciousness does not exist, then all human inventions are random mutations of chemicals and electrical synapses after the multi cellular human organism instinctively comes across a source of energy to feed on.


No. They are products of human intelligence. You are equivocating intelligence and consciousness, 2 very different things. That seems to be your primary method of debating. You compare things that aren't related and use vague terminology to insinuate that they are the same. You've done it with biological evolution and layman's evolution. You've done it with biological life and human technology. And now you've done it with consciousness and intelligence. I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but I have to call you out when I see such a poor regard for logical arguments.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Hi Barcs,
Would you mind clarifying your stance on intelligence? I ask because on at least a few occasions in your arguments you have proclaimed, to the point of demanding, that intelligence requires a brain, but then you seemingly waffled with your response to ImaFungi:


Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by ImaFungi
So I was getting at, do you really think the only way intelligence can manifest itself is via the human (or animal) brain?

Maybe not. There could be other ways to manifest the same type of neural network as the brain, without a biological brain.


So I'm curious - Does it or doesn't it require a brain in your view?

I also have to bring up the case for plant intelligence. By the very meaning and definition of intelligence, plants meet the criteria and then some. Yet they have no brain or neural networks to speak of.
Here are some interesting things plants do and you can tell me if any of these don't meet the requirement for intelligence in your view:
*Ability to communicate (with other plants and animals)
*Ability to protect against predators and warn other plants. Can summon other animals to ward off pests.
*Ability to recognize next of kin or stranger, and react accordingly, typically favoring kin
*As it relates to above point- capable of refined recognition of self and non-self, and are territorial in behavior.
*Ability to determine precisely how much food reserves will be needed to get through the night- which some scientists have likened to performing of math to do so
*Ability to store "memories" and "learn" from positive or negative experiences to adjust for future behavior
*Ability to sense magnetic fields, gravity and sunlight et al and being able to react accordingly
*They sleep
*As young budding flowers they've even been observed to "play" in a sense (scientists have no other way to describe it)

These are but a few aspects of their intelligent behavior. They are sophisticated as animals. But plants don't have brains, so how could this be? Scientists studying these behaviors in plants say that they do produce some of the same hormones and neurochemicals that humans and animals do, some of which are used for signaling. Other experts also believe that plants may have something akin to a decentralized brain and nervous system. If we look way back in the evolutionary lineage, plants and humans share common ancestors. So, it must then beg the question, does intelligence (and even consciousness as awareness/self-awareness is concerned) necessarily require a brain?

There's no doubt that many scientists and other antagonists will label it all a bunch of metaphor and pseudoscience, or not at all an indication of intelligence in plants. But there's finally been some very real acknowledgment and research into the nature of plant behavior. Darwin was the first to observe the behavior and compared it to animals. So I think the answer about whether or not intelligence requires a brain is obvious. Which could also be bolstered by your mentioning of AI.

So where do we go from here as it relates to intelligence and how it is derived? And why shouldn't this leave the door open for further discussions about a universal intelligence?
edit on 17-7-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 49  50  51    53 >>

log in

join