Intelligence Exists First, All else is Commentary

Originally posted by Mads1987
reply to post by filledcup

 

The wind creates sand dunes, and it has no consciousness. Sand is rock and minerals, neither of them have any consciousness, but together they can create heaps, banks, shores, hills, cliffs etc.
The driving force for creation is the laws of physics, and there is nothing which suggests that they originated from a sentient being.

what causes the wind to blow?

and a sand dune is not conscious either. are you more intelligent than a heap, a bank,a shore, a hill?

unconscious things creating more unconscious things is fine.

but are you more intelligent than a rock a hill or a cliff? id hope so.

Originally posted by filledcup

Originally posted by Mads1987
reply to post by filledcup

 

The wind creates sand dunes, and it has no consciousness. Sand is rock and minerals, neither of them have any consciousness, but together they can create heaps, banks, shores, hills, cliffs etc.
The driving force for creation is the laws of physics, and there is nothing which suggests that they originated from a sentient being.

what causes the wind to blow?

and a sand dune is not conscious either. are you more intelligent than a heap, a bank,a shore, a hill?

unconscious things creating more unconscious things is fine.

but are you more intelligent than a rock a hill or a cliff? id hope so.

Well, humans evolved from single celled organisms, that evolved from RNA, which might possible have interacted with a rock at one point or another. But RNA has been demonstrated to be produced through the natural cycles that exist on earth. Hence no sentient being is need to create other sentient beings.
But when would you consider an organism conscious? Is fungi conscious? How about insects or reptiles? Or is it only humans who qualify? Cause in that case I guess our unconscious ancesters created us.

Wind is created by differences in pressure.

The thread seems to have got muddled with word definitions.

The ''intelligence'' of the thread title, presumably relates to ''intelligent design'' and to an ''intelligent creator'' that initiated that ''intelligent design''. which obviously includes all of nature, the planets, universe etc and isn't referring to human intelligence.

Humans aren't the creators of the universe.

This thread is about the creation of the universe and matter and whether there is an intelligent creator which would mean creator of RNA, DNA, proteins, minerals, light, electromagnetism, atoms etc that existed BEFORE anything else in the entire universe.

The op seems to think so, without providing any theory.

Consciousness is alluding to a ''divine'' consciousness, in such that an omnipotent non physical entity / energy created matter and the universe, which is ''intelligently designed''.

''Consciousness'' is relating to an ''intelligent creator'' that existed BEFORE matter and the universe, rather than human's being conscious more than rocks for example.

Human consciousness isn't the creator of the universe. Humans aren't the creators of matter, electromagnetism, atoms, minerals etc.

Theoretically, presuming an ''intelligent creator'' that existed before all else, ''decided'' on creating the universe, there would be many questions, such as:

* where did the initial matter appear from?
* were subatomic particles the first matter?
* were electromagnetic waves ''created'' before or after matter?
* was /is this creator part of something greater than the universe?
* is there a multiverse?
* is the multiverse dimensionally similar to the universe as known by science?
* could there be dimensions that humans cannot yet comprehend?
* is the universe dimensional in nature

Religions mostly stop short of asking these questions, often citing ''this is how it is, some male deity made it all and sent his rep to tell you this and you will do as those claiming to k now it all and having part of this divinity say''

For me, that is bunk.

Quantum Mechanics is exploring dimensional possibilities and has more of a chance of proving if there is such a thing as the divine, and if so, just how this is and can be, and the true nature of the universe and multiverse (if such a thing exists) and is much more closer to the truth than 'it is because I say so' .

There never was a "first", there cannot be a "last", there is only an always, non-existence self-annihilates if there is consciousness.

Originally posted by Mads1987

Originally posted by filledcup

Originally posted by Mads1987
reply to post by filledcup

 

The wind creates sand dunes, and it has no consciousness. Sand is rock and minerals, neither of them have any consciousness, but together they can create heaps, banks, shores, hills, cliffs etc.
The driving force for creation is the laws of physics, and there is nothing which suggests that they originated from a sentient being.

what causes the wind to blow?

and a sand dune is not conscious either. are you more intelligent than a heap, a bank,a shore, a hill?

unconscious things creating more unconscious things is fine.

but are you more intelligent than a rock a hill or a cliff? id hope so.

Well, humans evolved from single celled organisms, that evolved from RNA, which might possible have interacted with a rock at one point or another. But RNA has been demonstrated to be produced through the natural cycles that exist on earth. Hence no sentient being is need to create other sentient beings.
But when would you consider an organism conscious? Is fungi conscious? How about insects or reptiles? Or is it only humans who qualify? Cause in that case I guess our unconscious ancesters created us.

Wind is created by differences in pressure.

edit on 06/06/12 by Mads1987 because: (no reason given)

edit on 06/06/12 by Mads1987 because: (no reason given)

evolution cannot explain how the first of each creature was created. and all evolutionary scientists admit that. leaving vacant an opening for an Intelligent Creator to create the first of our kind. a single celled organism is conscious. anything that houses life within itself and responds to stimuli of interacting with nature is conscious. ull find the common themes, of growth, feeding, mating/reproduction in conscious creatures including trees and plants.

look at this.. man is struggling to even create a single celled organism. so an unconscious creation is smarter than the consciousness it created in humans? no thanks. i will humbly accept that something smarter than me created all this.. especially since my intelligence has to grow to understand how it was done.

what causes the differences in pressure that pushes the wind?

Originally posted by Mads1987
reply to post by filledcup

 

The wind creates sand dunes, and it has no consciousness. Sand is rock and minerals, neither of them have any consciousness, but together they can create heaps, banks, shores, hills, cliffs etc.
The driving force for creation is the laws of physics, and there is nothing which suggests that they originated from a sentient being.

You presume to know everything. In fact, there is plenty indicating a transcendental source for the laws of physics. You just don't happen to be aware of it.

Here is a huge volume of rigorous, mathematical evidence for the existence of transcendental intelligence and amazing, mathematical design embodied in sacred geometries whose universal pattern has now been discovered and of which a part is being analysed (without their knowing it) by string theorists in the pages of journals of theoretical physics.
smphillips.8m.com...

reply to post by micpsi


i dont think he believes he knows everything. but he holds a strong position based on what he/she knows. the question is whether he has tested that position for holes hard enough. can he answer all the questions accurately on a factual basis leading up to the claim. or will there be theories used as glue to stick other facts together? or perhaps he has quite a few gaps in knowledge and relies on the opinion of the 'smarter people' in his school text books without examining and stress testing the claims for himself with his own thought.

Originally posted by Mads1987

Originally posted by AlienView
Yes, and thank you all for expressing, if not proving my point:

Intelligence Exists First, All else is Commentary

[PS: Signing out now, will return tomorrow.]

How does anything, anyone wrote in this thread, prove that point?!

You are right. This post was based upon the faulty assumption that human intelligence exists
- no proof of the existence of human intelligence can be found. Will return to the Alien/UFO
section of this forum where I can continue the search for human intelligence given the
acceptance of alien intelligence as a given and that the basis of most of the alien/UFO
phenomenon is caused by the alien search for human intelligence.

reply to post by filledcup


There needs to be a distinction made between awareness and consciousness because everything that changes has awareness.

Consciousness should be defined as willful awareness and awareness as sensory conception.

Once we have made this distinction, we can see that rocks are aware of the wind, and other forces, because they change based on their sensory conception of said force. However, they are not conscious because they have no will over their sensory conceptions.

-Just trying to help you along - not trying to play semantics.

Originally posted by Mads1987
But when would you consider an organism conscious? Is fungi conscious? How about insects or reptiles? Or is it only humans who qualify? Cause in that case I guess our unconscious ancesters created us.

Nonetheless we have a sample set (s=1) that consciousness exists. Despite the veracity of evolution, the presumption that we possess the data and science from which to define the limits of the consciousness set, is wishful thinking. I would hesitate to force any form of argument on the existence or non-existence of various forms of consciousness, as it smells of personal religion.

One more try.
When you are responding to this post on this forum you are making certain assumptions.
You are assuming that you have an intelligent conscious mind and you are communicating
with others who also have a conscious intelligent mind - otherwise why would you be
responding? You make the assumption of intelligence - even if you can not prove the
existence of intelligence you are making that assumption. And in fact even though you
want to argue and debate each other and me you are still proving my point - You are
accepting intelligence a priori even though you can not prove it exists, can not define it
in an absolute sense and are not even sure of exactly what it is. Hence:
"Intelligence Exists First, All else is Commentary" is a logical deduction,
And what I can not imagine is an existent state or existence itself without an
existent intelligent mind at least attempting to define it. No intelligence and no
mind equals none existence - I do not comprehend none existence and if intelligence
exists now it must always have existed.

reply to post by AlienView


Human intelligence (ie brain function, the faculty of thinking), and /or human consciousness (being aware of things) are different things to the concept of a ''consciousness'' or ''absolute intelligence'' that is theorised in intelligent design in the origins of and creation of the universe.

Just because you assume you cannot find ''human intelligence'' (I doubt you have any looked in any real capacity and also doubt your understanding of these concepts) presumably you are referring to an ''absolute intelligence'' in humans, isn't proof of intelligence existing before matter.

The origins of the universe is something science has long tried to solve, current theories have gaps though there are some interesting theories that the universe was constructed from space being composed of small building blocks. This doesn't necessarily mean there wasn't or was an ''absolute intelligence'' designing it all.

Regarding extra terrestrial intelligence being part of the equation, there are possibilities that the universe in entirety is other than proposed by current science theory. Humanity has yet to determine if there are other dimensions that could allow for such interaction and thus the creation of a revised model of the universe and perhaps multiverse.

Just like an ant will never comprehend space, technology and abstract concepts of divinity because of it's limited viewpoint physically and the restrictions of it's design, perhaps humanity is also only able to comprehend things within a certain field of view and comprehension because of it's limitations of design and physicality.

Some interesting research bridging gaps in science knowledge here:

scitechdaily.com...

Physicists from the Max Planck Institute and the Perimeter Institute in Canada have developed a new approach to the unification of the general theory of relativity and quantum theory.

Present-day physics cannot describe what happened in the Big Bang. Quantum theory and the theory of relativity fail in this almost infinitely dense and hot primal state of the universe. Only an all-encompassing theory of quantum gravity which unifies these two fundamental pillars of physics could provide an insight into how the universe began. Scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute) in Golm/Potsdam and the Perimeter Institute in Canada have made an important discovery along this route. According to their theory, space consists of tiny “building blocks”. Taking this as their starting point, the scientists arrive at one of the most fundamental equations of cosmology, the Friedmann equation, which describes the universe. This shows that quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity really can be unified.

This extremely demanding mathematical task recently led to a surprising success. “Under special assumptions, space is created from these building blocks, and evolves like an expanding universe,” explains Oriti. “For the first time, we were thus able to derive the Friedmann equation directly as part of our complete theory of the structure of space,” he adds. This fundamental equation, which describes the expanding universe, was derived by the Russian mathematician Alexander Friedman in the 1920s on the basis of the General Theory of Relativity. The scientists have therefore succeeded in bridging the gap from the microworld to the macroworld, and thus from quantum mechanics to the General Theory of Relativity: they show that space emerges as the condensate of these elementary cells and evolves into a universe which resembles our own.

reply to post by AlienView


Intelligence should be defined as consciousness' concept(s). More, intelligence does not need to be correct per say, but it helps with the argument, of course.

Having said that, you can not have intelligence without consciousness, will, and form because consciousness requires will and form, will requires consciousness and form, and form requires consciousness and will.

So... you cannot separate them, and that is essentially the holy trinity and why it is a trinity. Father is consciousness, Holy Ghost is will, and Son is the form.

Welcome to Christianity.

Originally posted by AlienView
Can you imagine a time when there was no time, no order, no universe and no existence? A time when there
was absolutely nothing? I can not. And yet some of your modern philosopher atheists want you to believe
that out of nothing the universe evolved into a logical scientifically definable state that we now view with eyes
that also evolved from nothing - And they accuse Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design of having
a fanciful imagination - But see it is the atheists who are the true believers in magic - a magical universe that
came from nothing. So let me say it once again, as I've said this before, from nothing comes nothing; Either
there is an apriori intelligence existing or we are all living inside of a chaotic delusion which may end as soon
as we wake-up - And when we wake up there will be nothing but the atheists who will have lost their way without
any intelligent design left for them to criticize - they will have their way there will be nothing!
But fear not...Intelligence comes first and the commentary will continue......

edit on 5-9-2013 by AlienView because: (no reason given)

Your comments are logical and coherent until your unsupported conclusion-- " Either
there is an apriori intelligence existing or we are all living inside of a chaotic delusion..."

Neglecting your confusion of the Latin phrase, "a priori," suggesting that you borrowed it from some incompetent, your conclusion is functionally the same as that of the atheist Big Bang theorists who conclude that there must have been a mysterious "physical singularity" that existed, then blew up and became our universe.

Their notion is absurd, as is yours. What brought your "intelligence" into existence? What kind of entity embodies its properties? What are its motivations for creation of the universe?

Answer the questions without recourse to Biblical BS, else go away.

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by filledcup

 

There needs to be a distinction made between awareness and consciousness because everything that changes has awareness.

Consciousness should be defined as willful awareness and awareness as sensory conception.

Once we have made this distinction, we can see that rocks are aware of the wind, and other forces, because they change based on their sensory conception of said force. However, they are not conscious because they have no will over their sensory conceptions.

-Just trying to help you along - not trying to play semantics.

not sure how u are using those words.

i would expect sensory conception to be recognized through sensory perception. ie conception is only confirmed when the sensory perceptors are tested or utilized and return data.

awareness would be the whole cycle of sensory conception/inception to sensory perception into sensory conception/confirmation.

a stone would then not be sensory perceptive or conceptive by human analogy of the 5 detected senses.

however, in the grand design of reality and how consciousness(awareness and willful interaction with the environment) permeates the construction of all matter then yes, the stone is conscious. but on a pure consciousness level in terms that it interacts with the environment based on the rules set for the atoms that make up its construct. how water dissolves softer parts of a rock and creates channels of erosion for example. but is unconscious in that our 5 senses are limited from conscious interaction with a stone.

this means we can see the stone, touch the stone, but cannot interact with it on a conscious level that is limited by the 5 senses and emotions in the way we would interact with our pet dog. the dog then displays conscious, willful interaction with the environment, where the stone displays unconscious predetermined interaction with its environment. meaning the stone cannot willfully decide to temporarily stop reacting to its environment. as long as water falls on it erosion will occur. but a dog can show interaction such as compliance and disobedience. such is an attribute of conscious, awareness of self thought and a choice that is generated internally. a stone cannot do this.

my point being that awareness is self awareness. a confirmation that comes from sensory perception, and the awareness of having senses to perceive the environment with those senses to determine 'i exist' is sensory conception. ie conception isnt completed until sensory perception is confirmed to belong to and provide data to the self for decision-making.

consciousness, would then be awareness. a willful interaction which occurs through conscious communication with other self aware entities or perception of the environment. it also contains an inherent or instinctive choice to ensure preservation of self. a stone or other inanimate 'object' cannot then be considered conscious or aware altho the spirit which permeates it is conscious.

on a spiritual level using the spiritual senses, which are pure sensory perception then it may be possible to interact with a stone and say to it "turn to gold" and the spirit which permeates it should restructure it's atomic structure into that of gold atoms.

so far we have required a body to acknowledge awareness/consciousness. but the spirit has all of the 5 senses and more but interacts with the environment on a much more intimate level than surface material does.

so if there is any distinction to be made it would have to be between consciousness on the material level, and consciousness on the psychological/spiritual level. leaving consciousness bonded to material existence to interact with the environment on a material level, while pure consciousness(spirit) is able to interact with the environment from it's source of creation.

for matters of scientific nature which deals with material interaction. a stone is unconscious. so is the sand, and so are the forces and all matter that makes up the universe.

if it were true that these things found a way through random chance to create the first of all the organisms we see around us which are conscious. then it is postulated by science that unconscious matter produced conscious living organisms. and that puts anything that is unconscious at a higer level of intelligence than the scientists that still cannot build a man from scratch in the lab being provided with all the raw material elements.

there's a nice pun in there. but ill leave off there for now. id prefer to believe that im more intelligent than inanimate objects(atoms) figuring out how to build an earth an environment, trees and all living things before i even got a chance to understand. i prefer to believe that something more intelligent and conscious than me created man.

in simple terms, i postulate that i am not dumber than a rock. nor is any living organism.

without adherence to a Supreme Consciousness facilitating life through intelligent design, we're essentially saying that inanimate objects figured out how to facilitate life before we did. since we still struggle so. not even able to construct an amoeba given all the necessary elements.

A summary of possibilities.

Humans have intelligence (the ability to think).

Intelligent design means the universe and all therein having specific function (atoms arranged specifically, cells able to have memory for purpose, chemical interactions, things adhering to mathematical and physical laws etc).

Intelligent designer (Creator) of the universe implies a conscious entity of absolute power that existed before all else.

If there was / is an Absolute Creator then either the universe is made of the Absolute Creator or the Creator has the ability for manifesting matter from non matter, or there was matter or the building blocks of matter there either before the Creator or existing alongside the Creator.

If matter was there before, it would imply it came from somewhere and rules out the need for a Creator.

If the Creator created matter, it would imply that there must be a force that can be manipulated for the creation of matter.

Another possibility is that the known universe could be part of a greater system and was created by a Creator and there are realms humanity doesn't yet know of.

A simple answer to the last two posts and my hypothesis.
One might and can believe that there is an 'inherent intelligence' to all of existence; this of course
was part of my original thinking when I said "Intelligence Exists First, All else is Commentary."
Another words whatever man discovers and defines is part of this inherit and a priori intelligence.
To some this may imply a creator - but that is a matter of personal interpretation. And admittedly
this is not a new idea; I don't remember all my classical philosophers but the idea of intelligence
being involved in the nature of existence without the necessity of there being 'a creator' has been
postulated before byone or more classical philosophers.

And to repeat again my evidence to this point of view - any and all valid scientific theories and any
books of science, physics, chemistry, biology, etc. - All indicate Intelligent Design. And creation
as part of an ongoing process in all of existence can be seen and does not have to be proven
- 'A creator' on the other hand is a matter of faith and is not provable.

Intelligence does exist first and gives birth to infinate stupidity. This is done for it's own amusement. Comedic relief propels the known reality forward like some grand Busby-Berkley production of cosmic slap stick.

Originally posted by HUMBLEONE
Intelligence does exist first and gives birth to infinate stupidity. This is done for it's own amusement. Comedic relief propels the known reality forward like some grand Busby-Berkley production of cosmic slap stick.

Finally an intelligent response to my original hypothesis !!!!
And just when I was about to give up on human intelligence and return to channeling aliens.
And yes aliens agree - find human history, when not contemplating its tragic nature,
to be a joke.

reply to post by filledcup

not sure how u are using those words.

Sorry, what I was trying to describe is very difficult to do without redefining terms.

I used "senses" to say: a concept of awareness [that exists within each field causing it to react internally or externally to stimuli.]

More, all senses (senses in the common vernacular) can be simplified as such: the acknowledgment and reaction derived from the interaction between fields - where acknowledgment is a concept of awareness and interaction/reaction is a concept of will.

So the way I used senses is that it is the acknowledgment part of reactions, and not the reactions themselves.

You might be thinking that force is a better term than acknowledgment and reactionary concepts, because we think of forces as the cause of reaction; but then what controls forces? Their field makeup and motion? What controls their field make up and motion? Their forces? It's circular logic, so I use acknowledgment concepts (awareness/sense) and reactionary concepts (will/reactionary motion determined by the acknowledgment concepts/sense).

In short, what I'm saying is:
Nothing can change unless it first acknowledges interaction (senses what is interacting with it) - and the more reactions a field has the more concepts/intelligence(sensory concepts) it has about other fields and its own field/field cluster.

I edited this to show our differences of opinions:

however, in the grand design of reality and how consciousness(awareness of its own awareness and willful interaction with the environment) permeates the construction of all matter then yes, the stone is conscious aware. but on a pure consciousness awareness level in terms that it interacts with the environment based on the rules set for concepts within the atoms that make up its construct fields that make up its field cluster. how water dissolves softer parts of a rock and creates channels of erosion for example. but is unconscious in that our 5 senses are limited from conscious interaction with a stone. rocks are not aware of their awareness and they have no will over their awareness.

Your unconscious brain is aware of the concepts coming from your unconscious eyes just as a rock is aware of the concepts that dirt is telling it about light and how to become bleached. In actuality, you have no idea what information your brain is actually getting from your eyes, you are just aware of the concepts your brain's awareness is telling you it is receiving (visualizations).

Are we more intelligent than rocks? Well that depends on the amount of concepts we have about other fields/field clusters.