Intelligence Exists First, All else is Commentary

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......

reply to post by AlienView

Are you suggesting God created everything from nothing then?

What about an agnostic point of view? That the answers are unknowable or limited to human experience.

Are you postulating that intelligence came before matter?

Perusing this idea, the definition of ''intelligence'' and ''matter'' have to be quantified.

Intelligence, is this a wave pattern, a particle, an atomic assembly, plasma etc or simply ''ethereal''.

Matter, the composition of sub atomic particles.

How can ''intelligence'' be defined unless ''matter'' is part of the equation?

Essentially how can ''intelligence'' exist unless it has an affect on something, ie ''matter''.

I have speculated on this since I can remember and believe that perhaps neutrinos, harmonics and sacred geometry in conjunction with an additional factor created the first arrangement of subatomic particles as ''intelligent'' arranged matter, ie that is able to construct itself into particle formations such as rock', and proteins.

All matter potentially could have the ability to turn into energy, which is the essential force required for animation and growth.


en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

All objects we see with the naked eye are composed of atoms. This atomic matter is in turn made up of interacting subatomic particles—usually a nucleus of protons and neutrons, and a cloud of orbiting electrons.[3][4] Typically, science considers these composite particles matter because they have both rest mass and volume. By contrast, massless particles, such as photons, are not considered matter, because they have neither rest mass nor volume. However, not all particles with rest mass have a classical volume, since fundamental particles such as quarks and leptons (sometimes equated with matter) are considered "point particles" with no effective size or volume. Nevertheless, quarks and leptons together make up "ordinary matter," and their interactions contribute to the effective volume of the composite particles that make up ordinary matter.
Matter commonly exists in four states (or phases): solid, liquid and gas, and plasma. However, advances in experimental techniques have revealed other previously theoretical phases, such as Bose–Einstein condensates and fermionic condensates. A focus on an elementary-particle view of matter also leads to new phases of matter, such as the quark–gluon plasma.[5] For much of the history of the natural sciences people have contemplated the exact nature of matter. The idea that matter was built of discrete building blocks, the so-called particulate theory of matter, was first put forward by the Greek philosophers Leucippus (~490 BC) and Democritus (~470–380 BC).[6]

Albert Einstein showed[7] that ultimately all matter is capable of being converted to energy (known as mass-energy equivalence) by the famous formula E = mc2, where E is the energy of a piece of matter of mass m, times c2 the speed of light squared. As the speed of light is 299,792,458 metres per second (186,282 mi/s), a relatively small amount of matter may be converted to a large amount of energy. An example is that positrons and electrons (matter) may transform into photons (non-matter). However, although matter may be created or destroyed in such processes, neither the quantity of mass or energy change during the process.

en.wikipedia.org...

Antineutrinos are the antiparticles of neutrinos, which are neutral particles produced in nuclear beta decay. These are emitted during beta particle emissions, when a neutron turns into a proton. They have a spin of ½, and are part of the lepton family of particles. The antineutrinos observed so far all have right-handed helicity (i.e. only one of the two possible spin states has ever been seen), while the neutrinos are left-handed. Antineutrinos, like neutrinos, interact with other matter only through the gravitational and weak forces, making them very difficult to detect experimentally. Neutrino oscillation experiments indicate that antineutrinos have mass, but beta decay experiments constrain that mass to be very small. A neutrino-antineutrino interaction has been suggested in attempts to form a composite photon with the neutrino theory of light.
Because antineutrinos and neutrinos are neutral particles it is possible that they are actually the same particle. Particles which have this property are known as Majorana particles. If neutrinos are indeed Majorana particles then the neutrinoless double beta decay, as well as a range of other lepton number violating phenomena, are allowed. Several experiments have been proposed to search for this process.

continued....

reply to post by AlienView


Obviously you don't understand the scientific method.
Theories are constructed by testing how well our observations and calculations can predict future events - and this process has lead to the current theories on the origin of the universe. Naturally it is hard to test or provide physical prove, but when compared to our knowledge of how the universe works, it seems to fit our current understanding.

But the beautiful thing about science is that nothing is written in stone - so in case new data is collected that would somehow imply something different, that data can and will be taken into consideration.

Fortunately no one demands that you believe the Big Bang Theory - unless of cause you are hoping for a career in physics or astronomy. But it is nonsensical to refuse to believe this, as a result of your religious beliefs. Some will tell you that they are compatible, but that will of cause depend on the extend of your religious beliefs.

Either way - just because you fail to understand a theory you just read a minute ago, it doesn't mean that it isn't or couldn't be true, or at least feasible.

continued....

Something interesting in this perusal is sacred geometry.

Lots of interesting information here.

Originally posted by ShadowLink
reply to post by AlienView

 

Are you suggesting God created everything from nothing then?

What about an agnostic point of view? That the answers are unknowable or limited to human experience.

Paradoxically I agree philosophically with an agnostic point of view. As far as i can see no one can 'prove' the
existence of a creator nor can they prove one does not exist. All I am saying is all of science indicates that the
known universe has a logical order based upon an intelligent pattern - Intelligent design as I use it is a scientific
concept not a religious one. And my evidence? Open any book of physics, chemistry, biology, etc. and you see
science showing intelligent design. And what I am implying is if this universe is ordered by a logical, intelligent
order then it was always that way - the universe did not suddenly become logical and take on an orderly pattern
just because man was finally able to see the order and logic of it - The universe and creation [as an ongoing
process] has an inherit logic even though we can not always understand it and so science will progress
and the nature of existence will be better understood.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth

Are you postulating that intelligence came before matter?

Einstein has said there is no matter - meaning matter is just another form of energy and all is energy.
I'm postulating that intelligence has to exist first even before energy, matter or anything else for that matter can be
defined to exist - not matter, not energy, but intelligence is the first and main principle underlying all of
existence - How do you know matter, energy or anything else for that matter exists if you do not have the
intelligence to define it?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -

[And yes, Sacred Geometry is very interesting]

Originally posted by AlienView

 

How do you know matter, energy or anything else for that matter exists if you do not have the
intelligence to define it?

No one has to know or define anything for it to exist.
You are generally debating the old thought experiment - If a tree falls in the forest...

Roy Bhaskar -
If men ceased to exist sound would continue to travel and heavy bodies to fall to the earth in exactly the same way, though ex hypothesi there would be no-one to know it

would intelligence exist before consciousness?

or is consciousness a better word to use in substitution of 'intelligence' coming first?

once consciousness can exist before the creation of the material, we would know that it can exist without a body, be formless and timeless yet conscious and alive, and that life after death is a very real possibility.

Originally posted by AlienView
reply to post by theabsolutetruth

 

Are you postulating that intelligence came before matter?

Einstein has said there is no matter - meaning matter is just another form of energy and all is energy.
I'm postulating that intelligence has to exist first even before energy, matter or anything else for that matter can be
defined to exist - not matter, not energy, but intelligence is the first and main principle underlying all of
existence - How do you know matter, energy or anything else for that matter exists if you do not have the
intelligence to define it?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -

[And yes, Sacred Geometry is very interesting]

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

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

''Intelligence'' has to be quantified if perusing it's affect on / and or on the creation of matter.

This is something humanity may never know as it is conceptual.

If ''consciousness'' = ''intelligence'', where did this ''consciousness'' / ''intelligence'' originate is the point.

Are you suggesting ''intelligence'' has always existed as ''everything'' and ''nothing'', as the beginning and end, containing all potential?

As for ''intelligence'' being considered the ability for thinking, it goes deeper, subatomic particles are ''intelligent'' in the way that they are defined by specific arrangment. Therefore any matter or non matter, for example photons, gluons, are also considered ''intelligent''.

www.rikenresearch.riken.jp...

Collisions of atomic and subatomic particles at very high energies reveal important properties about the beginning of the Universe and the atomic forces, and how fundamental particles are formed and react with each other. Adam Bzdak from the RIKEN BNL Research Center and colleague Vladimir Skokov from Brookhaven National Laboratory in the US have now proposed a scheme that allows for a better understanding of how light and subatomic particles react with each other during such high-energy collisions1.

At the very early stages of the Universe there were no atoms: energies were so high that atoms would have been torn apart. Instead, there was a mix of subatomic particles such as gluons and quarks. These make up the protons and neutrons inside atomic cores, but at very high energies they form a hot cloud known as a quark–gluon plasma. These plasmas can also be produced artificially by smashing heavy atoms together, as is currently being performed by the PHENIX Collaboration at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven.

In these experiments, it has been observed that light (photons) emanating from the collision zone varies in intensity depending on the direction of light emission (Fig. 1). This uneven distribution of photons is similar to the pattern expected for a quark–gluon plasma, which has surprised scientists. “Photons do not interact with the created matter and cannot be sensitive to the shape of the fireball,” says Bzdak. “This is a clear paradox and so far there is no compelling explanation. Clearly we do not understand something very basic.”

Interesting, that the quark / gluon plasma shape is the Vesica Piscis as shown on the sacred geometry video.

reply to post by Mads1987


been there. if a tree falls in the forest iand noone hears it of course it made a sound. it's up to the observer to be both present and have the sensory tools to perceive the observation.

if a deaf person is standing near a tree when it falls, does it make a sound?

answer is yes. the tree's sound is defined by the rules of the environment when gravity acts upon large objects. but if u have not ears to hear u will not hear the tree even if u were there.

if u close ur eyes when u see a mugger stealing a purse does that mean the mugger didnt steal the purse?

if u park ur car somewhere and return to see it gone but didnt see it leaving.. did it go missing?

that riddle isnt really all that profound. if there was no consciousness, then that tree wouldnt even exist because consciousness had to create it and create you to witness it. but u didnt create urself. so its a supreme consciousness which created the tree and then created you.

reply to post by filledcup


Your assumptions are too grandiose for my taste. There need not be a consciousness to create the trees nor myself, nothing implies what you are suggesting.

Originally posted by Mads1987
reply to post by filledcup

 

Your assumptions are too grandiose for my taste. There need not be a consciousness to create the trees nor myself, nothing implies what you are suggesting.

well can an unconscious stone create a conscious entity?

how would it go about to 'think' and 'envision' to do anything? how will it form a reaction without an external force acting upon it. 'newtons laws of motion'

reply to post by theabsolutetruth

As for ''intelligence'' being considered the ability for thinking, it goes deeper, subatomic particles are ''intelligent'' in the way that they are defined by specific arrangment. Therefore any matter or non matter, for example photons, gluons, are also considered ''intelligent''.

But how would you know this if you did not have an intelligent mind [and a resultant consciousness] to observe
and define what you are explaining? - again the intelligent state must first exist a-priori - no intelligence,
no consciousness, no existence - an impossible state.

reply to post by filledcup

that riddle isnt really all that profound. if there was no consciousness, then that tree wouldnt even exist because consciousness had to create it and create you to witness it. but u didnt create urself. so its a supreme consciousness which created the tree and then created you.

I partially agree - Yes you need intelligence and consciousness or you have nothing. But a 'supreme consciousness'
still eludes me because there you are taking a leap of faith, that is OK but it is hard to prove and/or define. An
on-going process of creation can be seen scientifically - 'A creator' is a matter of faith and can not scientifically
be proven in an absolute sense.

Originally posted by AlienView
reply to post by theabsolutetruth

 

As for ''intelligence'' being considered the ability for thinking, it goes deeper, subatomic particles are ''intelligent'' in the way that they are defined by specific arrangment. Therefore any matter or non matter, for example photons, gluons, are also considered ''intelligent''.

But how would you know this if you did not have an intelligent mind [and a resultant consciousness] to observe
and define what you are explaining? - again the intelligent state must first exist a-priori - no intelligence,
no consciousness, no existence - an impossible state.

Firstly, it appears you misread my post as opining whether ''intelligence'' or ''matter'' was first. I didn't give an opinion on this but perusing possibilities.

As I said both ''intelligence'' and ''matter'' have to be quantified before any real theory is proposed.

''Matter'' could be said to be ''intelligent'' ie the intelligent arrangement of particles, that exists as ''matter'' due to it's ''intelligent'' arrangement.

Does there have to be an individual ''consciousness'' deriving this ''intelligence'', as I said this is conceptual and something humanity might not ever know.

It could be that there is an energy / waveform / magnetism that is the ''consciousness'' that initiated ''intelligence'' and ''intelligent design'' ie matter.

Where then are you suggesting this ''consciousness'' appeared from and if it is ''something'' it has to be defined regarding it's properties.

The definition of ''consciousness'' as a non physical entity, ie not composed of matter would infer that it is ''intelligent'' ie a particular arrangement of ''something'' rather than a random lot of nothing.

The theory would then have to propose the nature of that ''arrangement'' resulting in ''consciousness'', which would infer that there was ''something'' there originally for such an ''arrangement'' being composed.

Which would then ask which thing was there originally that created ''consciousness'' or if ''consciousness'' is the thing that was there first, the absolute point of creation, how did it get there and where exactly was this? The universe? A dimension?

Can humanity ever comprehend such a thing?

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.

reply to post by AlienView


Can you imagine a time before you were intelligent? Before you could speak? Before you could walk? And yet there was a time, infancy, where you couldn't form long term memories properly at all. And yes, there was a time when you didn't exist.

Being unable to wrap your head around something has very little to do with whether or not it's true.

Naturalism makes a lot more sense than supernaturalism when it comes to these issues. For one thing nature is all we've ever observed or documented and no evidence for anything beyond nature has ever been found. Furthermore forces once believed to be supernatural have, one by one, been explained and shown to be natural.

The issue of where the Universe came from is a tricky one to be sure with no clear answer as of yet. But what is more likely? That the answer is natural or that it is supernatural? Adding a supernatural agent to the chain of cause and effect is a leap that does nothing to solve the problem. Saying God created the Universe falls victim to the same infinite regression as saying the Universe somehow came into being by itself. In my opinion any answer with a supernatural element seems less compelling.

I'd much rather admit that I don't know where the Universe came from than answer that mystery with an act of intellectual laziness. A God of the gaps could just as well be aliens of the gaps, or elves of the gaps, or an architect of the matrix of the gaps. We're still left without a satisfying answer and as I said I'd much rather leave that a mystery than simply make stuff up to act as a place-holder explanation. You say there's a God, an apriori intelligence? How? Why? Where is the evidence? And why would it be immoral or illogical to assume that your grand intelligence is anything more than imaginary when you have done absolutely nothing to demonstrate that it exists or even that it is a sound intelligible concept.

There is only one way to be wrong and that is to be certain.

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.]

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?!