Intelligence (Origins)
During our various discussions on evolution, origins, first causes, energy etc., we have constantly used the word "intelligence": David believes in a Universal Intelligence, some people believe in Intelligent Design, and I have been pushing the concept of the "intelligent cell/genome". Panpsychism is the theory that spatio-temporal things have a mental aspect, and in my own slant on this, again I have used the word intelligence. It may not be the right term in any of these contexts, but we don't have an English word that conveys all the nuances we need.-Generally, we use "intelligence" to mean the ability to perceive, learn, understand, reason, think about things, make decisions etc. And we associate it with consciousness, which in turn we associate with self-awareness. This is the element I would like to eliminate from the concept I'm trying to develop. In the context of evolution, adaptation (microevolution) and innovation (macroevolution) require a mechanism that will perceive, understand and adjust to the demands and opportunities presented by the environment, and the adaptive element of the process also applies to the cells within our own bodies, which must adjust to temperature, illness, diet, exercise and every other changeable factor in our daily lives. I do not believe that the cellular mechanisms are self-aware, which is why I prefer "intelligent" to "conscious".-Our fellow animals display varying degrees of intelligence, but I think most of us would agree that their self-awareness levels are considerably below our own, and so my concept - like the history of evolution itself - ranges from non-consciousness (e.g. bacteria, living cells) through consciousness (other animals) to extreme consciousness (humans).-Let us now move to the question of how inorganic matter came to life. It seems to be accepted that energy can form matter, which can again revert to being energy, and so perhaps this will give us a possible answer, following the analogy of the intelligent but non-conscious cell. If energy as the "first cause" has "intelligence" of the non-conscious variety, some of the matter it forms may be imbued with this same "intelligence", i.e. the ability to perceive, understand, adjust, and even invent. As an added bonus, we can even suppose that once the matter disintegrates, as all matter does, the energy might be released back into the infinite pool, having by then absorbed a great deal more information than it started with. In the case of humans, we know that it has acquired individual identity and self-awareness, so that when the matter (= the physical body) disintegrates, the released energy may be at human level, and not ... say ... bacterial. (I think this may fit in with some of BBella's ideas, but please note that all my speculations entail a "might" or a "may" or a "perhaps"!)-There is nothing original in this concept, and although it is irreconcilable with materialism, it certainly isn't with atheism. There are many eastern religions/philosophies (e.g. various branches of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism) that do not subscribe to a creator god but do believe in a spiritual life and also have their own words for this "intelligence". (BBella's "Akashi" is the Hindu word "Akasi", meaning ether, or the life-giving force.) But as I have pointed out before, every term carries its own burden of associations, and that is what I'm trying to avoid. David often claims that his UI has no attributes, but he endows it with self-awareness, purposefulness, the ability to plan, whereas the form of intelligence I am proposing really is devoid of any such qualities.-What, then, is the point of this hypothesis? It's an alternative that covers objections raised by both theists and atheists to the others' beliefs. The theist objects that atheism relies on chance for mechanisms so complex that they still defy all our attempts to explain them. The response to this would be that evolution already shows how lesser forms of intelligence can, over time, increase in complexity and levels of awareness, and so a "first cause" energy with low-level intelligence could also, in the same way, produce the intelligently combining materials that gave rise to life initially. The atheist objects to any concept that involves a divine being which consciously created the universe and life. The response to this would be that there is no such being, but that the universe (as energy converting itself into matter) is filled with materials which ... just like living cells ... are able to link up "intelligently" in an endless series of experiments. In other words, just as cells combined "intelligently" to create brand new organs like the liver, the heart, the brain, chemicals combined "intelligently" to form the first living molecules. The liver was not the result of chance mutations but of inventive cooperation between "intelligent" cells. Similarly, life and the mechanisms for evolution were not the result of chance combinations, but of inventive cooperation between "intelligent" chemicals. Research has already shown that cells communicate. Perhaps chemicals also communicate. -A "perhaps" that's worth considering?
Intelligence
by David Turell 
, Wednesday, February 27, 2013, 16:24 (4285 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:I do not believe that the cellular mechanisms are self-aware, which is why I prefer "intelligent" to "conscious".-I am proud of your attempt to define how nano-machines are controlled in their work. They do real work and act like little machines. The artistic videos that describe the movements are quite clarifying. > > dhw: and so my concept ranges from non-consciousness (e.g. bacteria, living cells) through consciousness (other animals) to extreme consciousness (humans).-I don't think you should ascribe 'consciousness' to lower animals than humans. They are conscious, but it not a self-aware conscious state. Behavioral scientists put animals in front of mirrors to see if they can spot some self-awareness. Humans are self-aware without mirrors. I would stop at: humans have true consciousness, animals below us are conscious but not self-analytic. > > dhw:Let us now move to the question of how inorganic matter came to life. It seems to be accepted that energy can form matter, which can again revert to being energy, and so perhaps this will give us a possible answer, following the analogy of the intelligent but non-conscious cell. If energy as the "first cause" has "intelligence" of the non-conscious variety, some of the matter it forms may be imbued with this same "intelligence", i.e. the ability to perceive, understand, adjust, and even invent. As an added bonus, we can even suppose that once the matter disintegrates, as all matter does, the energy might be released back into the infinite pool, having by then absorbed a great deal more information than it started with. In the case of humans, we know that it has acquired individual identity and self-awareness, so that when the matter (= the physical body) disintegrates, the released energy may be at human level, and not ... say ... bacterial.-The Laws of thermodynamics state that energy is always available in the same amount. It cannot be changed in total amount within this universe. Your attempt above fits my thinking that there is a universal consciousness to which our brain's consciousness is connected. Our brain is a form of radio receiver and sender in this relationship. Our 'soul' is your 'intelligence' returning to the UI after physical death of the body.-> dhw: David often claims that his UI has no attributes, but he endows it with self-awareness, purposefulness, the ability to plan, whereas the form of intelligence I am proposing really is devoid of any such qualities.-This is a misconception of my position. I ascribe no attributes to the 'personality' of the UI. By that I mean the human traits that distinguish each of us from the other. Love, hate, vengefulness, ambition, varying areas of interest, even intensity of sex drive create personality. God is a person like no other person, and the attributes of that 'person' have been inferred from the Bible and from looking at what has been created. These are all secondary impressions of that 'special personality'. But we can say that God does plan and that plan looks as if it is purposeful, but here is the stumbling block: we really don't know why God created us, just that we are here and at looks as if it is on purpose. We do not know God's personal motives. Does He want reciprocal love, the position of hopeful religions, or are we here just so He can watch a show or play, sit back and enjoy our foibles and struggles as we do in the theater. There is no proven anwer to this, only our wishes for a relationship, which is on our terms. What are His?- > > dhw: What, then, is the point of this hypothesis? It's an alternative that covers objections raised by both theists and atheists to the others' beliefs. ....... In other words, just as cells combined "intelligently" to create brand new organs like the liver, the heart, the brain, chemicals combined "intelligently" to form the first living molecules. The liver was not the result of chance mutations but of inventive cooperation between "intelligent" cells. Similarly, life and the mechanisms for evolution were not the result of chance combinations, but of inventive cooperation between "intelligent" chemicals. Research has already shown that cells communicate. Perhaps chemicals also communicate. -Chemicals react to each other or are forced to by enzymes according to certain principles Those principles are organized within cells to produce proteins, etc. under the control of the many, many layers of the genome well beyond the simple coding of protein in the DNA code. So the chemicals appear to act intelligently, but in fact are under tight controls such as a minus charged radical will bind to a plus charged radical. That cannot be avoided or changed. The cell is the result of a plan that uses these tight controls. That plan is 'information' not intelligence. An intelligence had to create the plan that runs the cell. That intelligence can create a plan to allow cells to communicate, again under tight controls. Cells are automatons, and do not show freedom of action. Cells work in concert for the overall good of the total organism. -You struggle to find the right term is misdirected. There is an information plan in every living organism, which is the key to why it is alive. Life is vastly different from non-living matter. The gap is so vast 60 years of intensive research has no answer to how life appeared. And has not shown any new avenues of research to find the answer.
Intelligence
DAVID: I don't think you should ascribe 'consciousness' to lower animals than humans. They are conscious, but it is not a self-aware conscious state. -I'd hesitate to say an elephant grieving for its dead calf, or a fox running away from hunters, isn't aware that it's sad or frightened. However, this isn't important for my hypothesis.-dhw: If energy as the "first cause" has "intelligence" of the non-conscious variety, some of the matter it forms may be imbued with this same "intelligence", i.e. the ability to perceive, understand, adjust, and even invent. As an added bonus, we can even suppose that once the matter disintegrates, as all matter does, the energy might be released back into the infinite pool, having by then absorbed a great deal more information than it started with [...]-DAVID: [...] Your attempt above fits my thinking that there is a universal consciousness to which our brain's consciousness is connected. Our brain is a form of radio receiver and sender in this relationship. Our 'soul' is your 'intelligence' returning to the UI after physical death of the body.-In the context of my hypothesis, your UI is too closely associated with a supreme, self-aware being. I'm suggesting that our own self-awareness follows a long history of unselfconscious, low-level "intelligent" energy producing "intelligent" matter that evolved into ever greater degrees of intelligence. If there is a soul that lives on, it may commune with other souls or maybe with other levels (the pet dog?), but there's no "universal consciousness" for it to return to, other than the unselfconscious infinity of energy from which everything has sprung.-dhw: David often claims that his UI has no attributes, but he endows it with self-awareness, purposefulness, the ability to plan, whereas the form of intelligence I am proposing really is devoid of any such qualities.-DAVID: This is a misconception of my position. I ascribe no attributes to the 'personality' of the UI. By that I mean the human traits that distinguish each of us from the other. Love, hate [etc...] God is a person like no other person [...] But we can say that God does plan and that plan looks as if it is purposeful...-Planning and purpose, with self-awareness, are what I objected to, although you may be right. My alternative hypothesis is that there's no such thing as God, let alone a god who is ANY kind of person. There is intelligence ... not self-aware ... within the separate strands of matter (chemicals that make life, cells that make organs) which have arisen from first cause, unselfconscious energy, and it's this intelligence within matter that drives material life and evolution. -dhw: The liver was not the result of chance mutations but of inventive cooperation between "intelligent" cells. Similarly, life and the mechanisms for evolution were not the result of chance combinations, but of inventive cooperation between "intelligent" chemicals. Research has already shown that cells communicate. Perhaps chemicals also communicate.-DAVID: Chemicals react to each other or are forced to by enzymes according to certain principles [...] So the chemicals appear to act intelligently, but in fact are under tight controls [...] The cell is the result of a plan that uses these tight controls. That plan is 'information' not intelligence. [...] Cells are automatons, and do not show freedom of action. Cells work in concert for the overall good of the total organism. Cells are automatons once their role has been established, but you believe a god deliberately manipulated/programmed them to form every new organ. Chemicals are under tight controls, but you believe a god deliberately manipulated/programmed them to create life. Regardless of automatic behaviour AFTER each innovation (life itself, liver, heart, brain), something happened BEFOREHAND to combine the necessary elements. If the innovation could be worked from without (God), why could it not be worked from within (intelligence)? Once the patterns were formed, the pieces would then establish their own controls (at least till the next innovation). The river makes its route, and then it stays within the boundaries it's set itself. We know that cells communicate, adapt and innovate ... otherwise there'd be no evolution - but we don't know how. "God did it" is your answer, from chemical combinations to cell combinations. Chance is one alternative. An inventive, unselfconscious intelligence is another. DAVID: Your struggle to find the right term is misdirected. There is an information plan in every living organism, which is the key to why it is alive. Life is vastly different from non-living matter. The gap is so vast 60 years of intensive research has no answer to how life appeared. And has not shown any new avenues of research to find the answer.-I agree. And our ignorance allows me to speculate on alternatives to materialistic chance and to theistic belief in an eternal super-intelligence. I'm proposing a lesser form of intelligence (energy) which through an infinite number of material combinations has evolved ever greater degrees of intelligence, in the same way as unselfconscious cells have evolved ever greater degrees of complexity. If you can believe in a readymade superintelligence, why can't you believe in an evolving lesser intelligence?
Intelligence
by David Turell , Thursday, February 28, 2013, 16:08 (4284 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Your struggle to find the right term is misdirected. There is an information plan in every living organism, which is the key to why it is alive. Life is vastly different from non-living matter. The gap is so vast 60 years of intensive research has no answer to how life appeared. And has not shown any new avenues of research to find the answer. > > dhw: I agree. And our ignorance allows me to speculate on alternatives to materialistic chance and to theistic belief in an eternal super-intelligence. I'm proposing a lesser form of intelligence (energy) which through an infinite number of material combinations has evolved ever greater degrees of intelligence, in the same way as unselfconscious cells have evolved ever greater degrees of complexity. If you can believe in a readymade superintelligence, why can't you believe in an evolving lesser intelligence?-I can't believe in your proposed infantile form of what seems to be "baby intelligence" which then grows to something more complex. We do see this with our human babies which have to grow to be self-aware as their brains mature. But tht is planned maturization. I can only know my complete intelligence and can only accept, for the creation of the universe and life, a mind of vaster capacity than mine. IMHO only such a mind could have created our reality from nothing. Does your baby intelligence grow by chance or by purpose?
Intelligence
Dhw: And our ignorance allows me to speculate on alternatives to materialistic chance and to theistic belief in an eternal super-intelligence. [...] If you can believe in a readymade superintelligence, why can't you believe in an evolving lesser intelligence?-DAVID: I can't believe in your proposed infantile form of what seems to be "baby intelligence" which then grows to something more complex. We do see this with our human babies which have to grow to be self-aware as their brains mature. But tht is planned maturization. I can only know my complete intelligence and can only accept, for the creation of the universe and life, a mind of vaster capacity than mine. IMHO only such a mind could have created our reality from nothing. Does your baby intelligence grow by chance or by purpose?-My hypothetical first-cause "baby intelligence" grows by unplanned, experimental evolution, just as complexity grows from the invention of new organs by my hypothetical unselfconscious "intelligent cell/genome". Neither by chance, nor by some overriding purpose.-I know you don't/can't believe in anything but an eternal, readymade superintelligence, and I respect your faith. However, your reason for rejecting this alternative hypothesis is puzzling. You believe that evolution took place, and so you believe that every multicellular organism represents a process by which something more complex has grown from something simpler. You also believe that the mind is a form of energy that can exist independently of the body. If energy transmutes itself into matter, and matter can evolve, it doesn't seem unreasonable to suppose that the "mind-energy" (intelligence) that formed and is contained within the matter might also evolve. Furthermore, you insist that the evolution of intelligence can only be "planned", and yet you also insist that a self-aware, infinitely clever intelligence was NOT planned, but has simply existed forever. I really can't see that such a scenario is any more believable than one in which a simpler, unselfconscious intelligence (that of inorganic chemicals followed by that of organic cells) evolved into our own self-aware cleverness. Your original response to this was that cells are automatons, to which I responded that they only become automatons after each innovation ... by which I mean that instead of Darwin's random mutations, the cells themselves initiate the new combination, and when it works they automatically stick to it. In the context of the origin of life, once the chemicals had found the combination that worked, they also automatically stuck to it. Your hypothetical version has an unknown, unknowable, readymade, self-aware "person like no other person" making the laws that govern the way chemicals combine to create life and evolution. My hypothetical version has "intelligent", unselfconscious energy making the "intelligent" unselfconscious chemicals which have made the same laws. Neither God nor chance.
Intelligence
by David Turell , Friday, March 01, 2013, 19:12 (4283 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw:My hypothetical first-cause "baby intelligence" grows by unplanned, experimental evolution, just as complexity grows from the invention of new organs by my hypothetical unselfconscious "intelligent cell/genome". Neither by chance, nor by some overriding purpose.-You have a point. the universe went from hot plasma, to energy particles, to galaxies with planets, all following underlying laws we have discovered. But rules of action and law come from intelligent planning. If at first there was amorphous disorganized energy, how does anyting develop from that point? I know you do not propose the changes to more organization were not by chance. So how does the energy advance?- > dhw: Furthermore, you insist that the evolution of intelligence can only be "planned", and yet you also insist that a self-aware, infinitely clever intelligence was NOT planned, but has simply existed forever. I really can't see that such a scenario is any more believable than one in which a simpler, unselfconscious intelligence (that of inorganic chemicals followed by that of organic cells) evolved into our own self-aware cleverness.-I cannot believe your senario, unless I accept the idea that in an unguided evolution of energy proceeded by chance to a more organized state. our self-aeareness is very organized energy.- >dhw: My hypothetical version has "intelligent", unselfconscious energy making the "intelligent" unselfconscious chemicals which have made the same laws. Neither God nor chance.-Where did the intelligence in 'your energy' come from? There must intelligence in a first cause as a necessary given.
Intelligence
I'm proposing a hypothesis that evolution is driven by an unselfconscious but inventive form of "intelligence" within living cells, and that life itself may have come about through a similar "intelligence" inherent in the chemicals that combined to create it. DAVID: Where did the intelligence in 'your energy' come from? There must intelligence in a first cause as a necessary given. Energy is my first cause, as it is yours, but I'm proposing that its "intelligence" is of the same unconscious yet potentially creative sort as that of the cell. And so if you ask me where it came from, I can only give you the same answer you give me when I ask where your self-aware, planning, purposeful intelligence came from. It has always been there.-DAVID: If at first there was amorphous disorganized energy, how does anything develop from that point? [...] So how does the energy advance?-Was there ever an "at first"? What preceded the Big Bang (assuming it happened)? But even if it was a beginning, you yourself believe the energy was not amorphous and disorganized. The resultant matter gradually formed patterns, but instead of a super, self-aware intelligence consciously and purposefully making them, I'm suggesting they were made by an unselfconscious intelligence within the materials themselves, in exactly the same way as later, unselfconscious cells formulated new combinations to drive evolution. Energy advances ... in the cosmos and on Earth ... through new combinations of the materials it creates and within which it resides. DAVID: I cannot believe your scenario, unless I accept the idea that in an unguided evolution of energy proceeded by chance to a more organized state. Our self-awareness is very organized energy.-Unguided, yes, but not by chance. The "intelligent cell/genome", which I thought we had agreed on, is the obvious example. A change in the environment (e.g. a massive increase in oxygen) may allow for new forms of life. "Intelligent" mechanisms within the cells of existing creatures then produce new combinations (organs) that can exploit the new environment. The production of these organs is not guided, but it is not by chance. (Your latest post under "James Shapiro" seems to be following precisely this line of thought.) If they work, the new combination will be perpetuated, and the cells will once more act like automatons. Similarly, unselfconscious first cause energy creates systems. There may be billions of them that don't work, and they will not survive. However, when a system does work, it survives, and the chemicals then act like automatons to preserve it. The whole process is one of "intelligent" but unselfconscious experimentation followed by success followed by a mixture of stabilization (our solar system, the mechanisms that give us life) and evolution (the ability of living cells to form new combinations). Not guided by a god within and without, not the product of countless giant strokes of luck, but the result of endless experiments through which each success leads to greater complexity, culminating (as we see it) in a form of intelligence that has become aware of itself.
Intelligence
by David Turell , Saturday, March 02, 2013, 15:12 (4282 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:I'm proposing a hypothesis that evolution is driven by an unselfconscious but inventive form of "intelligence" within living cells, and that life itself may have come about through a similar "intelligence" inherent in the chemicals that combined to create it.-Inherent rules cover chemical reactions. If that is what you mean by 'intelligence' what intelligence made the rules?-> DAVID: If at first there was amorphous disorganized energy, how does anything develop from that point? [...] So how does the energy advance? > > dhw: Was there ever an "at first"? What preceded the Big Bang (assuming it happened)? But even if it was a beginning, you yourself believe the energy was not amorphous and disorganized. The resultant matter gradually formed patterns, but instead of a super, self-aware intelligence consciously and purposefully making them, I'm suggesting they were made by an unselfconscious intelligence within the materials themselves, -After the Big Bang ALL energy was an amorphous plasma. Where is the intelligence? > > DAVID: I cannot believe your scenario, unless I accept the idea that in an unguided evolution of energy proceeded by chance to a more organized state. Our self-awareness is very organized energy. > > dhw: Unguided, yes, but not by chance. The "intelligent cell/genome", which I thought we had agreed on, is the obvious example. A change in the environment (e.g. a massive increase in oxygen) may allow for new forms of life. "Intelligent" mechanisms within the cells of existing creatures then produce new combinations (organs) that can exploit the new environment. The production of these organs is not guided, but it is not by chance. (Your latest post under "James Shapiro" seems to be following precisely this line of thought.) If they work, the new combination will be perpetuated, and the cells will once more act like automatons. -Cells are automated factories which can self-correct to some degree as Shapiro shows. So can the robots in the automated car factories, designed by engineers. But you want cells as automated factories to appear but never engineered? I can't imagine that just as you cannot imagine my God.-> dhw:Similarly, unselfconscious first cause energy creates systems. -As Tony point out, not without reasoning.
Intelligence
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, March 02, 2013, 07:08 (4282 days ago) @ dhw
Generally, we use "intelligence" to mean the ability to perceive, learn, understand, reason, think about things, make decisions etc. And we associate it with consciousness, which in turn we associate with self-awareness. This is the element I would like to eliminate from the concept I'm trying to develop. In the context of evolution, adaptation (microevolution) and innovation (macroevolution) require a mechanism that will perceive, understand and adjust to the demands and opportunities presented by the environment, and the adaptive element of the process also applies to the cells within our own bodies, which must adjust to temperature, illness, diet, exercise and every other changeable factor in our daily lives. I do not believe that the cellular mechanisms are self-aware, which is why I prefer "intelligent" to "conscious". > -This is about as far I was able to get before my brain rebelled. :P The problem is not self-awareness, it is the ability to reason. -A cell would have to be self-aware, and to a certain extent self-analytical in order to be able to function. That is, it would have to be aware of its current internal state, its nominal internal state, and the current state of its environment in some limited form. If it wasn't, it would not be able to 'react' to its surroundings in order to develop anything beyond basic chemical reactions. Even computers have this ability in a very limited fashion. This is the bare minimum requirement necessary for something to adapt(vs. simple reaction) in any way, shape, or form. -In order for there to be any purposeful creativity of the sort needed for creating a higher order of life, you would have to add the ability to reason into the mix as well. The primary difference here being that reason reflects on past experience and current inputs in order to predict and thus change proactively absent any prior programming directing the proactive response. -We take for granted our instincts and those of animals. How did those programs originate? Natural selection is certainly not a viable option because for the most part there is no means for an instinct to be acted upon, and in the cases where there there is, the logical outcome of that action is generally negative or at best inconclusive. -For example, think about migrating birds. They do not migrate for a few miles, or even a hundred miles. They flock hundreds and thousands of miles every year like clock work, and they do it proactively(i.e. They leave BEFORE it gets to cold for them). There is no good explanation for how this behavior evolved; how this program was written. Without self-awareness, consciousness, AND reasoning the whole house of cards tumbles down. -If science says that these animals are not able to reason, then what reasoning consciousness DID come up with the program?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Intelligence
by David Turell , Saturday, March 02, 2013, 14:58 (4282 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony: This is about as far I was able to get before my brain rebelled. :P The problem is not self-awareness, it is the ability to reason. -That has been part of my argument all along. Except I did not use the word 'reason', but self-analytic, the same thing. Thanks for interceding.-> >Tony: For example, think about migrating birds. They do not migrate for a few miles, or even a hundred miles. They flock hundreds and thousands of miles every year like clock work, and they do it proactively(i.e. They leave BEFORE it gets to cold for them). There is no good explanation for how this behavior evolved; how this program was written. Without self-awareness, consciousness, AND reasoning the whole house of cards tumbles down. -My new book has a whole chapter on this point. Instinctual behavior is never explained by Darwin's theory. > > Tony: If science says that these animals are not able to reason, then what reasoning consciousness DID come up with the program? -Yes!!!
Intelligence
Dhw: Generally, we use "intelligence" to mean the ability to perceive, learn, understand, reason, think about things, make decisions etc. And we associate it with consciousness, which in turn we associate with self-awareness. This is the element I would like to eliminate from the concept I'm trying to develop. -TONY: This is about as far I was able to get before my brain rebelled. :P The problem is not self-awareness, it is the ability to reason.-Welcome back, Tony. It will be very helpful to have another perspective on this, as David and I may have reached a stalemate. However, I'm sorry your brain rebelled so soon, as you have commented on the introduction and not the concept itself. I've summarized this in my latest post to David: "that evolution is driven by an unselfconscious but inventive form of "intelligence" within living cells, and that life itself may have come about through a similar "intelligence" inherent in the chemicals that combined to create it." There is no English word for what I'm trying to convey, which is why I'm using "intelligence" in inverted commas, and what you quoted is my attempt to explain it. You will note that "reason" (highlighted) is included in my list, but self-awareness is what I'd like to exclude from the definition, because I'm proposing an alternative origin for life and evolution to the standard ones of 1) a self-aware creator god and 2) chance. I actually agree with almost everything in your post, but before we get onto your major questions, let me respond to what you say about cells:-TONY: A cell would have to be self-aware, and to a certain extent self-analytical in order to be able to function. That is, it would have to be aware of its current internal state, its nominal internal state, and the current state of its environment in some limited form.-I'm happy to accept "to a certain extent" and "in some limited form", especially as you go on to talk about animals. You stopped before my next paragraph, which began: "Our fellow animals display varying degrees of intelligence, but I think most of us would agree that their self-awareness levels are considerably below our own." On this thread, I'm trying to differentiate between lesser intelligence and the highest form we know, which I've linked to self-awareness. I do not believe, for instance, that a cell is capable of saying to itself, "I'm a liver cell. What is my purpose? Do I really want to be a liver cell? How did I become a liver cell? Why am I a liver cell and not a lung cell?" But I do believe that at some time cells determined the need for a mechanism to aid metabolism, storage, secretion etc., and in due course a new organ came into being. TONY: We take for granted our instincts and those of animals. How did those programs originate?-"Originate" is the crucial word. Instinct sets in once the new organ or activity has established itself. David says that cells are automatons. I'm saying that they become automatons once they've invented the new and successful organ. That is why I'm talking of "unselfconscious but inventive" cells: as you say, they're aware of their own state and of the environment, and I suggest that they also take the decisions which result in innovations. As regards your other example, to what extent migrating birds pass on information or act on instinct I don't know, but there must have been a first time, and that was the "intelligent" innovation. TONY: If science says these animals are not able to reason, then what reasoning consciousness DID come up with the program?-First of all, I disagree with the claim that our fellow animals can't reason. Large numbers of scientific experiments (David has told us about some) and observations have shown that they can ... but obviously not to anything like the degree that we can. This is central to my hypothesis, but it extends even further than animal and cellular reasoning. I'm suggesting that "intelligence" of varying levels is present in all living things, and may well be present in inorganic matter too. Again I'll try to sum up the argument to save you wading through past posts. I agree with David that there has to be a first cause, and we've both taken that to be energy. Energy transmutes itself into matter. Just as the material cell is clearly possessed of "intelligence" as I've tried to explain the term, the energy that gave rise to it and that is contained within it will also be "intelligent". And just as cells combine to create more and more complex organisms, so the energy within them may increase the complexity of its "intelligence", culminating in our own self-awareness. In other words, first-cause energy is not a self-aware, readymade inventor who has been around forever and whose superintelligence is simply and inexplicably there, but it is possessed of low-level, unselfconscious "intelligence" which has evolved through the matter it creates, just as the low-level unselfconscious "intelligence" of single cells has evolved through material combinations to the high-level, self-aware "intelligence" we claim for ourselves.-Sorry if this is a slightly messy post, but it's difficult to condense the complete thread, especially when there is no proper term for the concept I'm trying to develop!
Intelligence
by David Turell , Saturday, March 02, 2013, 20:02 (4282 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: First of all, I disagree with the claim that our fellow animals can't reason. Large numbers of scientific experiments (David has told us about some) and observations have shown that they can ... but obviously not to anything like the degree that we can. -Agree.-> dhw: In other words, first-cause energy is not a self-aware, readymade inventor who has been around forever and whose superintelligence is simply and inexplicably there, but it is possessed of low-level, unselfconscious "intelligence" which has evolved through the matter it creates...-Here I violently disagree. Matter has nothing to do with creation of intelligence. First cause energy is intelligence and intelligence advances only through consciousness, as they are intertwined. My dog's intelligence is limited because his consciousness is so limited.
Intelligence
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, March 03, 2013, 07:02 (4281 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: I've summarized this in my latest post to David: "that evolution is driven by an unselfconscious but inventive form of "intelligence" within living cells, and that life itself may have come about through a similar "intelligence" inherent in the chemicals that combined to create it." .. You will note that "reason" (highlighted) is included in my list, but self-awareness is what I'd like to exclude from the definition, because I'm proposing an alternative origin for life and evolution to the standard ones.. > ->DHW:Our fellow animals display varying degrees of intelligence, but I think most of us would agree that their self-awareness levels are considerably below our own." On this thread, I'm trying to differentiate between lesser intelligence and the highest form we know, which I've linked to self-awareness. ... But I do believe that at some time cells determined the need for a mechanism.. > -And to me, again, this is where it breaks down. When you say 'determine the need' that is implying them making a reasoned judgement based on what could only be called an imaginative situation. They would either a)have to be capable of abstract logic and creativity which would make them much more advanced than your description, or b) have to be pre-programmed with a set of criteria and an order of operations. - > TONY: We take for granted our instincts and those of animals. How did those programs originate? > >DHW: "Originate" is the crucial word. Instinct sets in once the new organ or activity has established itself. -That can't work, because without instinct, their can be no drive for life. Reproductive instincts, survival instincts, etc would all have to exist at the cellular level in your framework. So, in a organism whose life can measured in terms of minutes or days, where is the time needed to develop a pattern of behavior solidly enough to become an instinct. -> > DHW: I'm suggesting that "intelligence" of varying levels is present in all living things, and may well be present in inorganic matter too. -Agreed- For the rest, see above.-One last note. As an experiment, try to come up with something completely new. ANYTHING completely new, that has never been created before. Now, as a second experiment, try doing the same thing WITHOUT using ANY other information that you have ever known. -If you succeed with either one of those, let me know. At that point, your hypothesis will have entered the realm of possible.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Intelligence
by David Turell , Sunday, March 03, 2013, 15:08 (4281 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony: And to me, again, this is where it breaks down. When you say 'determine the need' that is implying them making a reasoned judgement based on what could only be called an imaginative situation. They would either a)have to be capable of abstract logic and creativity which would make them much more advanced than your description, or b) have to be pre-programmed with a set of criteria and an order of operations.-"b)" is where Shapiro's work demonstrates just such pre-programming
Intelligence
Dhw: But I do believe that at some time cells determined the need for a mechanism...-TONY: And to me, again, this is where it breaks down. When you say 'determine the need' that is implying them making a reasoned judgement based on what could only be called an imaginative situation.-I would not call it an imaginative situation. This whole hypothesis rests on the ability of cells to respond to the environment, either through adaptation or invention, to solve new problems or exploit new conditions. TONY: They would either a)have to be capable of abstract logic and creativity which would make them much more advanced than your description, or b) have to be pre-programmed with a set of criteria and an order of operations. In your first post you wrote: "A cell would have to be self-aware, and to a certain extent self-analytical in order to be able to function. That is, it would have to be aware of its current internal state, its nominal internal state, and the current state of its environment in some limited form. If it wasn't, it would not be able to 'react' to its surroundings in order to develop anything beyond basic chemical reactions. [...] This is the bare minimum requirement necessary for something to adapt." I'd like to avoid "self-aware" for reasons already given, but I'd regard all this as tantamount to "a reasoned judgement", and the description I have given includes perceiving, learning, reasoning, making decisions...We know that cells do function, and that they do adapt. I am going one step further, and suggesting that these qualities also enable them to innovate.-TONY: We take for granted our instincts and those of animals. How did those programs originate?-DHW: "Originate" is the crucial word. Instinct sets in once the new organ or activity has established itself. TONY: That can't work, because without instinct, their can be no drive for life. Reproductive instincts, survival instincts, etc would all have to exist at the cellular level in your framework. So, in a organism whose life can measured in terms of minutes or days, where is the time needed to develop a pattern of behavior solidly enough to become an instinct.-There must have been a "first" for everything. In my scenario, when chemicals first combined to create an hereditary molecule, maybe the process was "intelligently" repeated elsewhere (= convergence), or all life sprang from that single success as the chemical combination automated itself. I have no more idea about how it caught on than you have about where your God got his "intelligence" from. However, all the innovations that have led from single cells to human beings have been the result of new cellular combinations. Each of these innovations must have worked and must have "established itself", though again I have no idea how long or how many generations it takes for an innovation to become an instinct. Your question applies no matter what theory you have about innovations. Or do you believe that your God manufactured each innovation separately (= anti-evolution), and immediately made it instinctive in every individual creature he gave it to? Or that he preprogrammed the very first cells to pass on the blueprint for each innovation that led from single cells to us, again with each individual organism immediately adopting it as an instinct? In this case, perhaps humans were also preprogrammed to invent the wheel, the car, the computer. My hypothesis is that cells of existing organisms have used their "intelligence" to invent sight, sex, flight, just as the cells of humans have used their now self-aware "intelligence" to invent computers. (I regard consciousness culminating in self-awareness as the most extraordinary of all inventions, apart from life itself.)-TONY: One last note. As an experiment, try to come up with something completely new. ANYTHING completely new, that has never been created before. Now, as a second experiment, try doing the same thing WITHOUT using ANY other information that you have ever known. If you succeed with either one of those, let me know. At that point, your hypothesis will have entered the realm of possible.-You don't have to convince me that there is a mystery here. That is at the heart of all our discussions! Materialists think they have solved the mystery by attributing life itself to chance and, likewise, innovations to random mutations. Theists think they have solved it by attributing life and innovations to an infinite, unknowable, self-aware, supreme intelligence which has always been there, is capable of whatever they want it to be capable of, and has whatever qualities they want it to have. I am suggesting a process whereby life and innovations are the material products of first-cause, low-level "intelligent" energy, which is incorporated within and evolves with these materials as it brings them together in increasingly complex combinations.
Intelligence
by David Turell , Sunday, March 03, 2013, 18:32 (4281 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: You don't have to convince me that there is a mystery here. That is at the heart of all our discussions! Materialists think they have solved the mystery by attributing life itself to chance and, likewise, innovations to random mutations. Theists think they have solved it by attributing life and innovations to an infinite, unknowable, self-aware, supreme intelligence which has always been there, is capable of whatever they want it to be capable of, and has whatever qualities they want it to have. I am suggesting a process whereby life and innovations are the material products of first-cause, low-level "intelligent" energy, which is incorporated within and evolves with these materials as it brings them together in increasingly complex combinations.-You are trying for a third way like Nagel. I wish I could give you a short course in the histology of the liver. Its architcture is more complex than that of a 30 storey building. It cell types are as varied as the parts of the building, but one big difference is that the liver is also in a chemical business of making and destroying chemicals all by itself. Buildings have an architect. So does the liver. The individual cells could not have held a congress over a few billion years and decided how to organize themselves. Not without guidance. It takes more than individual intelligence at a low level. I think your analogy fails. Nagel never got this far in fantasy.-As far as evolution is concerned, liver-equivalents appear de novo in the Cambrian, suddenly, not bit by bit as cells would do negotiating among themselves. Your cell congress will not work. It does not answer the fossil record, as Gould noted. All new species appear de novo, fully formed and functional. There are no tiny steps in the fossil record. -Nagel was wise to stop where he did, since a third way is not apparent from the materialist viewpoint. Which is why there is a philosphical path to panentheism with a dolop of panpsychism.
Intelligence
by BBella , Sunday, March 03, 2013, 21:51 (4281 days ago) @ David Turell
You are trying for a third way like Nagel. I wish I could give you a short course in the histology of the liver. Its architcture is more complex than that of a 30 storey building. It cell types are as varied as the parts of the building, but one big difference is that the liver is also in a chemical business of making and destroying chemicals all by itself. Buildings have an architect. So does the liver. The individual cells could not have held a congress over a few billion years and decided how to organize themselves. Not without guidance. It takes more than individual intelligence at a low level. I think your analogy fails. -But, David, you are discounting the possibility of quantum interconnectedness, the true architect of all that is. Once any information is recorded by new innovative creations within matter, that information is always available to all other creations. Individual cells would then have no need to hold congress (which would never get anything done) to decide how to organize themselves as they always have available to them whatever is needed. Energy (the malleable fabric from which all that is springs) retains all information always, making all information readily available and limitless for new cellular creations. - > As far as evolution is concerned, liver-equivalents appear de novo in the Cambrian, suddenly, not bit by bit as cells would do negotiating among themselves. Your cell congress will not work. It does not answer the fossil record, as Gould noted. All new species appear de novo, fully formed and functional. There are no tiny steps in the fossil record. > -Then exactly what is the answer to how the above appeared "de novo", in your book? Intervention?
Intelligence
by David Turell , Monday, March 04, 2013, 01:34 (4280 days ago) @ BBella
b bella: But, David, you are discounting the possibility of quantum interconnectedness, the true architect of all that is. Once any information is recorded by new innovative creations within matter, that information is always available to all other creations. -I am not forgetting the interconnectedness. But that does not mean that meaningful information is readily available or usable in biologic material. If that were the case evolution would not have been so sluggish and episodic. It would have flowed smoothly from single cell to us. Despite the interconnections, making a quantum computer is still a research struggle, but folks are getting there as Matt will tell you. Biologic matter is like no other matter. Biochemistry is extremely complex and the interconnectedness so far demonstrated involves non-living matter. On the other hand, consciousness is needed for quantum observation, yet evolution of the universe and of life proceeded before human consciousness appeared. > > > David: As far as evolution is concerned, liver-equivalents appear de novo in the Cambrian, suddenly, not bit by bit as cells would do negotiating among themselves. Your cell congress will not work. It does not answer the fossil record, as Gould noted. All new species appear de novo, fully formed and functional. There are no tiny steps in the fossil record. > > > > b bela: Then exactly what is the answer to how the above appeared "de novo", in your book? Intervention? -That is the debate. In the Cambrian a variety of organs that never before existed suddenly appeared and whole animals were now on Earth with legs or flippers, simple circulatory systems, kidney-like and liver-like organs, nerve cells with connections, complex eyes, etc . There are three choices: Darwin's chance production; some form of intervention, either with coding in the DNA from the beginning, or episodic intervention to change the DNA as time passed; or what dhw is proposing to get around the problems each of the other choices present. Nagel could not find an answer, nor can dhw, as they will not accept the probability (as I see it) of a greater power. The interconnectedness you have thought about is at the consciousness level (as I see it), which means it is at a very complex biologic level reequiring brains like ours. Evolution proceeded without human consciousness, therefore I think there is a universal consciousness using the network of, or providing the prior interconnectedness. I think the two, consciousness and interconnectedness, are two sides of the same coin.
Intelligence
DAVID: Buildings have an architect. So does the liver. The individual cells could not have held a congress over a few billion years and decided how to organize themselves. Not without guidance. [...]As far as evolution is concerned, liver-equivalents appear de novo in the Cambrian, suddenly, not bit by bit as cells would do negotiating among themselves. Your cell congress will not work. It does not answer the fossil record, as Gould noted. All new species appear de novo, fully formed and functional. There are no tiny steps in the fossil record.-Who said anything about billions of years? Who said anything about livers appearing bit by bit? Of course there are no tiny steps in the fossil record. A non-functioning liver is not going to be fossilized! I have no idea how long it took for livers to be formed, and nor have you. We only know of the finished product. It took your God as long as he took, and it took my cells as long as they took. (But it's worth noting that the first 20-million-year phase of the Cambrian, in which most of these innovations appeared, would cover a million 20-year generations. Time enough for God or the cells to work it out.) BBELLA: Then exactly what is the answer to how the above appeared "de novo", in your book? Intervention? DAVID: There are three choices: Darwin's chance production; some form of intervention, either with coding in the DNA from the beginning, or episodic intervention to change the DNA as time passed; or what dhw is proposing to get around the problems each of the other choices present. -Agreed.-DAVID: Nagel could not find an answer, nor can dhw, as they will not accept the probability (as I see it) of a greater power.-So your reason for rejecting my hypothesis is that I do not accept your hypothesis! Meanwhile, BBELLA has pointed out the importance of interconnectedness. DAVID: I am not forgetting the interconnectedness. But that does not mean that meaningful information is readily available or usable in biologic material. If that were the case evolution would not have been so sluggish and episodic. It would have flowed smoothly from single cell to us.-May I suggest that if there was a God whose purpose was to create humans, "evolution would not have been so sluggish and episodic. It would have flowed smoothly from single cell to us." The higgledy-piggledy progress of evolution clearly supports ad hoc invention (as in my hypothesis) rather than preplanning (as in yours). BBELLA: Energy (the malleable fabric from which all that is springs) retains all information always, making all information readily available and limitless for new cellular creations.-DAVID: The interconnectedness you have thought about is at the consciousness level (as I see it), which means it is at a very complex biologic level reequiring brains like ours. Evolution proceeded without human consciousness, therefore I think there is a universal consciousness using the network of, or providing the prior interconnectedness.-This is one reason why I prefer "intelligence" to "consciousness", because you equate the latter with a self-aware God (UI). Why must the interconnectedness be at this level? The information is there to be used by whatever form of intelligence, low or high, can use it. Each cellular community can build on the work of preceding cellular communities. My hypothesis does not need a universal, self-aware intelligence to direct operations.
Intelligence
by David Turell , Monday, March 04, 2013, 16:25 (4280 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: This is one reason why I prefer "intelligence" to "consciousness", because you equate the latter with a self-aware God (UI). Why must the interconnectedness be at this level? The information is there to be used by whatever form of intelligence, low or high, can use it. Each cellular community can build on the work of preceding cellular communities. My hypothesis does not need a universal, self-aware intelligence to direct operations.-Also dhw from a thread with Tony:-> dhw: "Indeed. Exactly the same applies to the concept of an impersonal, low-level first-cause "intelligent" energy which has had an eternity to produce different combinations of matter."-I'm totally confused. You have infused raw energy with knowledge, information, or intelligence. Really? What carries this info? How is it transmitted through evolution? What originated this info? Or did it arise de novo without thought or planning? Is the info in any sort of understandable pattern or is it amorphous? None of your theory tells us about these issues. The usual concept of information is that it is carried by a code, whether DNA or letter of a language. The characteristics of the particle zoo are understood in launguage, but their indivivual actions are a built-in aspect of their construction. They just act or react as they are constructed to do automatically. Yet the universe evolved. It didn't need particles that 'undersand' or interpret a plan. Their design caused the evolution. It didn't take eternity in this universe, only 13.7 billion years. How the design came about is where we battle. -In living matter the same thoughts apply. The organic chemicals are extremely complex and are organized according to principles we understand while the chemicals react as automatons. Cells are complex and coordinated. Same problem: where did the design come from? "Amorphous information"; you can't even define what you are proposing. It is nebulous and does not lead to any proposal that can be researched.- Design requires an intelligence that is self-aware and analytic for proper planning of the design. It has to be design if you cannot accept chance. The third way you are looking for is consciousness which is a result of interconnectedness. Quantum consciousness is the key. The only possible conclusion based on what we have learned in the past several hundred years of science. b bella undestands this through her psychic abilities.
Intelligence: orphan genes
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 05, 2013, 01:27 (4279 days ago) @ David Turell
This new discovery may be the hidden mechanism that advances evolution. It has been assumed that when genomes were sequenced it would show a genome tree of life. It doesn't. About one-third of genes appear de novo and seem to drive innovation:-"NOT having any family is tough. Often unappreciated and uncomfortably different, orphans have to fight to fit in and battle against the odds to realise their potential. Those who succeed, from Aristotle to Steve Jobs, sometimes change the world. Who would have thought that our DNA plays host to a similar cast of foundlings? When biologists began sequencing genomes, they discovered that up to a third of genes in each species seemed to have no parents or family of any kind. Nevertheless, some of these "orphan genes" are high achievers, and a few even seem have played a part in the evolution of the human brain. But where do they come from? With no obvious ancestry, it was as if these genes had appeared from nowhere, but that couldn't be true. Everyone assumed that as we learned more, we would discover what had happened to their families. But we haven't ... quite the opposite, in fact."-http://ccsb.dfci.harvard.edu/web/export/sites/default/ccsb/publications/papers/2013/All_alone_-_Helen_Pilcher_New_Scientist_Jan_2013.pdf
Intelligence
DAVID: I'm totally confused. You have infused raw energy with knowledge, information, or intelligence. Really? What carries this info? How is it transmitted through evolution? What originated this info? Or did it arise de novo without thought or planning? Is the info in any sort of understandable pattern or is it amorphous? None of your theory tells us about these issues. [...] You can't even define what you are proposing. It is nebulous and does not lead to any proposal that can be researched.-My turn to be confused. We have agreed that there must be a first cause, and that it is energy. Your hypothetical first cause energy is infused with knowledge, information, intelligence, self-awareness, purpose, planning ability, telekinetic powers that enable it to fashion anything from universes to microscopic computers, and you call it God. My nameless hypothetical first cause energy has limited "intelligence", which has formulated systems from which have evolved ever more complex systems and ever increasing "intelligence", as each builds on the progress of its predecessors. Please tell us how your indefinable, nebulous, unresearchable God theory answers the questions you have asked about mine. DAVID: The third way you are looking for is consciousness which is a result of interconnectedness. Quantum consciousness is the key. The only possible conclusion based on what we have learned in the past several hundred years of science. b bella undestands this through her psychic abilities.-I hope BBella will speak for herself about what she understands, but I'd like to make it clear that my hypothesis can easily fit in with her psychic experiences. I am suggesting that matter contains the "intelligence" of the energy that formed it, and both evolve as described above. It may well be that in some people, and even in some other animals, the "intelligent" energy within the brain cells makes contact with the energy of other intelligences, and after death the same process may continue (who knows?). The matter (here, the physical brain) disintegrates, and so the energy may be released along with the knowledge, information etc. it has gained during its physical lifetime. But it is released not into a single, all-knowing, universal being, but into an infinite field of different (even if interconnected) intelligences that have evolved from first-cause energy. Perhaps we can only communicate with our own form of intelligence, although we might also be able to perceive other "realities" (landscapes, sounds, events) since the energy that gives rise to them is never lost. All pure speculation, as Tony says, but this hypothesis offers just as much scope for psychic experiences as the God hypothesis.
Intelligence
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 05, 2013, 15:38 (4279 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Please tell us how your indefinable, nebulous, unresearchable God theory answers the questions you have asked about mine.-We agree upon first cause that contains information. The problem between us is how organized is that information. I do not believe the concept you favor can go anywhere except by chance, a process which you disavow. I believe only a fully formed mind can avoid chance. Your theory does not describe avoidance of chance. Therefore it falls apart. -There is a scientific way to detect design as the design theorists have shown, Michael Behe in particular, and Dembski as another. In any evolutionary process the advancement is either through hunt-and-peck chance or directive design. The Orphan gene article I just presented offers a possible glimpse into a DNA directed designed advance. All of the research into levels of genome control has simply introduced us to increasing complexity and that level of complexity is only just appearing. It will get 'complexer' and even more 'complexer', until the designing mind theory will win by default. Be patient. You will see, if we all live long enough. > > DAVID: The third way you are looking for is consciousness which is a result of interconnectedness. Quantum consciousness is the key. The only possible conclusion based on what we have learned in the past several hundred years of science. -> dhw: I'd like to make it clear that my hypothesis can easily fit in with her psychic experiences. I am suggesting that matter contains the "intelligence" of the energy that formed it, and both evolve as described above. It may well be that in some people, and even in some other animals, the "intelligent" energy within the brain cells makes contact with the energy of other intelligences, and after death the same process may continue (who knows?).-What is required is a quantum-based universal consciousness. Sheldrake has shown experimental evidence for both animal and human species consciousness. That all fits your statement above. All of this is a subset of the universal consciousness we call God. And as you can see my concept of God is amenable to scientific research.
Intelligence
dhw: Please tell us how your indefinable, nebulous, unresearchable God theory answers the questions you have asked about mine.-DAVID: We agree upon first cause that contains information. The problem between us is how organized is that information. I do not believe the concept you favor can go anywhere except by chance, a process which you disavow. I believe only a fully formed mind can avoid chance. Your theory does not describe avoidance of chance. Therefore it falls apart.-In your previous post my theory apparently fell apart because I couldn't tell you where the information came from, how it was transmitted, what shape it had, how to define it. In my response I levelled the same unanswerable and therefore of course unanswered criticism at your God theory. As regards chance, all our experience of life on Earth shows us that complex material combinations can be created by forms of intelligence that do not have our own degree of self-awareness (genetic mechanisms in plants, animals, insects, birds have engendered huge innovations, and they themselves can also weld materials into complex patterns). According to your hypothesis, every single innovation either had to be pre-programmed into the first cells and passed on intact through trillions of generations and zillions of individual organisms, or your God nipped in each time with his telekinetic powers to rejiggle the genes. Perhaps you would tell us which of these extraordinary procedures you believe in. My own hypothesis does not rely on chance or on a god. It relies on forms of intelligence less developed than our own, progressively accumulating knowledge and information with each and every successful new combination. (See "orphan genes" below.) DAVID: There is a scientific way to detect design as the design theorists have shown, Michael Behe in particular, and Dembski as another. In any evolutionary process the advancement is either through hunt-and-peck chance or directive design. I would add the name of Turell when it comes to a scientific study of how mechanisms work. This may well (and in my view understandably) lead to a non-scientific inference that the mechanisms have been designed. Any further inference as to how and by what the mechanisms were designed is pure speculation and has nothing to do with science. My hypothesis does not reject design. It is an alternative to your hypothesis of a single, self-aware, purposeful, knew-it-all-from the beginning designer. -DAVID: The Orphan gene article I just presented offers a possible glimpse into a DNA directed designed advance.-Yes, it does. And it is fascinating: "Over time, the gene may come to be expressed in other tissues and evolve new functions. New discoveries about the nature of proteins also make the idea of genes arising de novo seem far more plausible. It was once thought proteins must be folded into a delicate, precise 3D structure to work properly, but it now seems many exist in a state of intrinsic disorder, flitting through thousands of different possible conformations, all the while remaining perfectly functional."-There could scarcely be a better description of the whole process of cosmic and biological evolution, in which many of the elements "exist in a state of intrinsic disorder, flitting through thousands of different conformations, all the while remaining perfectly functional." Why would a "fully formed mind" with a specific purpose and with the knowledge of how to achieve its purpose have to experiment with thousands of different possible conformations in order to reach that purpose? The higgledy-piggledy history of the universe and of life as we know them is filled with comings and goings that fit in perfectly with the concept of an undirected "intelligent" energy which has diversified ad hoc into countless different forms of matter, some remaining as they were, some progressively becoming more complex, knowledgeable and aware, and the vast majority probably disappearing back into the infinite pool.
Intelligence
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, March 07, 2013, 02:18 (4277 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The Orphan gene article I just presented offers a possible glimpse into a DNA directed designed advance. > > DHW: Yes, it does. And it is fascinating: > "Over time, the gene may come to be expressed in other tissues and evolve new functions. > New discoveries about the nature of proteins also make the idea of genes arising de novo seem far more plausible. It was once thought proteins must be folded into a delicate, precise 3D structure to work properly, but it now seems many exist in a state of intrinsic disorder, flitting through thousands of different possible conformations, all the while remaining perfectly functional." > > There could scarcely be a better description of the whole process of cosmic and biological evolution, in which many of the elements "exist in a state of intrinsic disorder, flitting through thousands of different conformations, all the while remaining perfectly functional." Why would a "fully formed mind" with a specific purpose and with the knowledge of how to achieve its purpose have to experiment with thousands of different possible conformations in order to reach that purpose? The higgledy-piggledy history of the universe and of life as we know them is filled with comings and goings that fit in perfectly with the concept of an undirected "intelligent" energy which has diversified ad hoc into countless different forms of matter, some remaining as they were, some progressively becoming more complex, knowledgeable and aware, and the vast majority probably disappearing back into the infinite pool.--I think they, and you too perhaps, might be jumping the gun here. From the cycle I have witnessed over and over, scientist will say something is random and disorganized only to find out that there actually IS an organization behind it that they simply did not understand at the time of making the discovery.(Junk DNA anyone?) Had they not been so busy back-patting and trying to justify their pet theory they might have found those patterns sooner. I am sure that time will show that this case is absolutely no different.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Intelligence
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, March 04, 2013, 05:23 (4280 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw: But I do believe that at some time cells determined the need for a mechanism... > > TONY: ..'determine the need' that is implying them making a reasoned judgement based on what could only be called an imaginative situation.[/i] > > DHW: I would not call it an imaginative situation...the ability of cells to respond to the environment, either through adaptation or invention, to solve new problems or exploit new conditions.-Responses do not require anything, they can be purely chemical in nature, like mixing bleach and ammonia. Adaptations, you might even get away with by simple gene-transference through 'selection'. I.E. black butterflies do not get eaten and so reproduce more. To invent, solve, or exploit however are drastically different in kind. All three of these processes are creative in nature, and by their nature, imaginative. In other words, in order for any of those three processes to happen, the intelligence must perceive a situation that does not exist yet in order to plan for it pre-emptively. That is several orders of magnitude more complex than what your hypothesis allows for. --> DHW: I'd like to avoid "self-aware" for reasons already given, but I'd regard all this as tantamount to "a reasoned judgement", and the description I have given includes perceiving, learning, reasoning, making decisions...We know that cells do function, and that they do adapt. I am going one step further, and suggesting that these qualities also enable them to innovate.-You can not do any of these functions that you have described without being self-aware. That is the whole point. In order to do these things, you either must be a pre-programmed automaton with hard coded self-awareness, like a computer, or be innately self-aware. --> DHW: There must have been a "first" for everything. -Agreed. The question is to the nature of that 'first'. If I program a computer, the 'first' originates in me, the designer, and I apply it to the program. When the program runs, the first created 'instance' of the object I coded displays the behavior that it was programmed to display. Every object that comes after can build upon that, but again, ONLY if programmed to do so. Likewise, the program to build upon the first instances program would also have originated with me. ->DHW: I have no more idea about how it caught on than you have about where your God got his "intelligence" from. -See Below->DHW: Your question applies no matter what theory you have about innovations. Or do you believe that your God manufactured each innovation separately (= anti-evolution), and immediately made it instinctive in every individual creature he gave it to? Or that he preprogrammed the very first cells to pass on the blueprint for each innovation that led from single cells to us, again with each individual organism immediately adopting it as an instinct? -As many designers do now, I think that God most likely developed an emergent design, where a relatively small number of rules and constants allow for a near infinite variety, and then built layers of information into that. But that is purely speculation. > DHW You don't have to convince me that there is a mystery here. That is at the heart of all our discussions! .. Theists think they have solved it by attributing life and innovations to an infinite, unknowable, self-aware, supreme intelligence which has always been there..-There is a fairly significant primary difference is that the concept of God or a UI supposes that it may have had a relative eternity in solitude in order to figure it out. No one knows what was going nor how long the time frame was before any sort of creative events began taking place.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Intelligence
TONY: Responses do not require anything, they can be purely chemical in nature, like mixing bleach and ammonia. [...] To invent, solve, or exploit however are drastically different in kind. All three of these processes are creative in nature, and by their nature, imaginative. In other words, in order for any of those three processes to happen, the intelligence must perceive a situation that does not exist yet in order to plan for it pre-emptively.-It depends what sort of response we're talking about. I'm a primate living in trees; suddenly there's a dramatic change in my particular part of the world, and all the trees disappear. Or I live in an endless ocean, and suddenly the water recedes and there is land to walk on, oxygen in the air. The former scenario DEMANDS an innovative response; the latter situation ALLOWS FOR an innovative response. These are typical, new and real scenarios which I am suggesting have driven cells to innovate, thereby causing evolution to advance. Of course innovation is creative by definition, but in the evolutionary context, not pre-emptive. DHW: I'd like to avoid "self-aware" for reasons already given, but I'd regard all this as tantamount to "a reasoned judgement", and the description I have given includes perceiving, learning, reasoning, making decisions...We know that cells do function, and that they do adapt. I am going one step further, and suggesting that these qualities also enable them to innovate.-TONY: You can not do any of these functions that you have described without being self-aware. That is the whole point. In order to do these things, you either must be a pre-programmed automaton with hard coded self-awareness, like a computer, or be innately self-aware.-In my earlier response I accepted your version of self-awareness "to a certain extent" and "in some limited form" (your terms), but emphasized the contrast with human self-awareness, which asks philosophical questions that I do not believe cells or our fellow animals to be capable of. I've said all along that I have a major problem of definition because I'm using an existing term ("intelligence") in a particular way ... but there is no other word to describe my concept. If I ascribe human-type self-awareness to first-cause intelligence, I might as well call it God. The whole point of my hypothesis is that first-cause "intelligence" has evolved in the same way as cells have evolved ... from relatively simple to extremely complex, the latter comprising our human level of self-awareness. TONY: As many designers do now, I think that God most likely developed an emergent design, where a relatively small number of rules and constants allow for a near infinite variety, and then built layers of information into that. But that is purely speculation.-Of course. My hypothesis is pure speculation too.-DHW You don't have to convince me that there is a mystery here. That is at the heart of all our discussions! .. Theists think they have solved it by attributing life and innovations to an infinite, unknowable, self-aware, supreme intelligence which has always been there..-TONY: There is a fairly significant primary difference is that the concept of God or a UI supposes that it may have had a relative eternity in solitude in order to figure it out. No one knows what was going nor how long the time frame was before any sort of creative events began taking place.-Indeed. Exactly the same applies to the concept of an impersonal, low-level first-cause "intelligent" energy which has had an eternity to produce different combinations of matter.
Intelligence
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, March 06, 2013, 10:38 (4278 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: I'm a primate living in trees; suddenly there's a dramatic change in my particular part of the world, and all the trees disappear. Or I live in an endless ocean, and suddenly the water recedes and there is land to walk on, oxygen in the air. The former scenario DEMANDS an innovative response; the latter situation ALLOWS FOR an innovative response... Of course innovation is creative by definition, but in the evolutionary context, not pre-emptive. > -Need I point out that in the first of these situations the critter in question gets exactly one chance to change or they completely die out of starvation? Or that the one in a (insert insanely astronomical number here) chance for that to occur would have to happen twice at the same time in order for a breeding pair to survive? That would mean that your cellular intelligence would have to be capable of immediate inventiveness in order to overcome the changes both in terms of internal physiology and psychological behaviors. -In the second example, there is no motivation for changing provided that water still exists, and this is exactly what we see in nature. Animals to not plop out of the sea onto land and start breathing air just because the water is a little low. What generally happens is that they reduce their population count to a level that their changed habitat can support. Nothing more, nothing less. -Neither one of these scenarios allows for any kind of experimentation, requiring that whatever adaptations/innovations occur MUST come into fruition fully formed and completely functional, or the result is death. That is one of the same issues that traditional Evolution faces. Any adaptation/innovation must be fully functional from conception onwards, or the animal dies. - >DHW: In my earlier response I accepted your version of self-awareness "to a certain extent" and "in some limited form" (your terms), but emphasized the contrast with human self-awareness, which asks philosophical questions that I do not believe cells or our fellow animals to be capable of. I've said all along that I have a major problem of definition because I'm using an existing term ("intelligence") in a particular way ... but there is no other word to describe my concept. If I ascribe human-type self-awareness to first-cause intelligence, I might as well call it God. The whole point of my hypothesis is that first-cause "intelligence" has evolved in the same way as cells have evolved ... from relatively simple to extremely complex, the latter comprising our human level of self-awareness. > -I do not think I have ever ascribed to God a 'human-type' awareness. His awareness is to ours what ours is to dirt's. I use human language, as pitiful as it is, to try and describe those characteristics, but it no more suitable than saying 'colorful' is to describing a sunset. --> TONY: There is a fairly significant primary difference is that the concept of God or a UI supposes that it may have had a relative eternity in solitude in order to figure it out. No one knows what was going nor how long the time frame was before any sort of creative events began taking place. > > DHW: Indeed. Exactly the same applies to the concept of an impersonal, low-level first-cause "intelligent" energy which has had an eternity to produce different combinations of matter.-Except that there is a very definite time limitation in the case of cellular intelligence.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Intelligence
My examples of non-pre-emptive innovation involve changes in the environment which either demand or allow for a different way of life. TONY: Neither one of these scenarios allows for any kind of experimentation, requiring that whatever adaptations/innovations occur MUST come into fruition fully formed and completely functional, or the result is death. That is one of the same issues that traditional Evolution faces. In the first scenario, it depends how immediately life-threatening the environmental changes are. In the second, there is no threat to life, but a new environment offers new possibilities, e.g. instead of living in water, an organism might explore living on land. David has posted a fascinating article on "orphan genes", which tells us that many proteins "exist in a state of intrinsic disorder, flitting through thousands of different possible conformations, all the while remaining perfectly functional."*** This is how I imagine the whole system might work, though the apparent disorder may be due to experimentation. If species are in danger, they may well die out before adaptations/innovations come to fruition. If they are not, there will be time for "different conformations". But I'm not going to pretend for one minute that I've sussed out the mechanics of all this, and from my position on the fence, I think it's only right and proper for us to question ALL hypotheses.-Yours, as you phrased it last time, was: "God most likely developed an emergent design, where a relatively small number of rules and constants allow for a near infinite variety, and then built layers of information into that." I find the wording of this quite difficult to follow. By "developed an emergent design", do you mean he kept tinkering with the design as things went along? And does "then built layers of information into that" mean further tinkering? I shall have to repeat what I wrote for David on this subject. Do you believe that God pre-programmed the very first cells to pass the blueprint for sex/liver/brain down through countless generations of individual organisms and different species, or that every innovation was the result of his stepping in and fiddling with the genes? Do you think he grabbed hold of a pair of primates and reorganized their "internal physiology and psychological behaviors" (your terms) so that one minute they were apes and the next they were humans? Ditto for every single innovation you can think of: a programme dormant for a few thousand million years suddenly produces livers etc.; or God decides one day to put livers (plus all the necessary link-ups) in a collection of his existing creatures? TONY: I do not think I have ever ascribed to God a 'human-type' awareness. His awareness is to ours what ours is to dirt's. I use human language, as pitiful as it is, to try and describe those characteristics, but it no more suitable than saying 'colorful' is to describing a sunset.-I'm trying to distinguish between levels of "intelligence". If I ascribe self-awareness, planning, purpose etc. (human-type attributes) to my first-cause version, I might as well call it God. But I don't mean this disrespectfully. If your God exists, then of course his intelligence and awareness are infinitely greater than ours. I too am using language to describe something indescribable ...a form of "intelligence" that is totally different from ours.-TONY: [...] there is a very definite time limitation in the case of cellular intelligence.-While your first-cause, self-aware God was "figuring it out" (prior to the Big Bang, if it happened), my first-cause, unselfconscious "intelligent energy" could have been experimenting with who knows how many earlier universes? -*** I had drafted my post before seeing your latest on this subject:-TONY: I think they, and you too perhaps, might be jumping the gun here. From the cycle I have witnessed over and over, scientist will say something is random and disorganized only to find out that there actually IS an organization behind it that they simply did not understand at the time of making the discovery.(Junk DNA anyone?) [...]-They are talking here about proteins, but I'm using their terms in a broader sense to describe my (hypothetical) process of innovative experimentation. The researchers also wrote: "Over time, the gene may come to be expressed in other tissues and evolve new functions." Whether these new functioning "patterns" may be attributed to chance, to your God, or to my "intelligent cell/genome" remains open.
Intelligence
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, March 08, 2013, 05:40 (4276 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: "God most likely developed an emergent design, where a relatively small number of rules and constants allow for a near infinite variety, and then built layers of information into that." I find the wording of this quite difficult to follow. By "developed an emergent design", do you mean he kept tinkering with the design as things went along? And does "then built layers of information into that" mean further tinkering? - Emergent design means that you start with a very basic set of guiding principals that form the framework for your entire creation. For example, we have the underlying laws of Quantum Physics and physics that guide all other actions/reactions in the physical universe. They are partially deterministic in nature, ascribing what may and may not happen when certain events come to pass. They do not, in and of themselves, put any events into motion, but only form the guiding principals that guide the outcome of those events once triggered. -The third layer of information, to the best of our knowledge, is that found in life. DNA, RNA, etc. There are certain guiding principals, rules and organization if you will, that these things must follow or they simply would not work. Again, the underlying rules only serve as a frame work for what will occur when the proper conditions are met, they do not set any events in place. Layer upon layer of information seemlessly integrated and working together to provide infinte variety. -To relate it back to game design, a game that is shipped out to the customer is an inert framework. It does nothing in and of itself. It is only when the game is played in the proper type of machine and receives inputs from the user that anything happens within the game at all. -Developers, when creating games, create tool sets that they can work with. We call them Game Engines. These Engines are very similar to Quantum Physics, Physics, and DNA in that they do not define the possibility space of what we can create, but rather they define what will happen when we mix and match certain elements. If we mix or match them wrong, the entire design is unstable and will crash. Even if we mix and match them right, and develop a stable system, it is still possible for the end user to break that system by doing things that the game was not designed to handle. Not only will this ruin the gaming experience for the user, but it can also have a cascading effect whereby it destroys or corrupts later aspects of the game in ways that no one could anticipate. -A good life example of this was the straightening of the Kissimee River in Florida. The river, by design, formed a natural water filter, biological habitat, and performed a number of other useful functions. The Army corp of engineers decided to 'improve' upon the river by digging a channel that essentially made the river one straight path from north to south Florida. The effect was the poisoning of the water supply and the destruction of the natural habitat because the River, without its bends, was no longer capable of performing its intended function. -- >DHW: I shall have to repeat what I wrote for David on this subject. Do you believe that God pre-programmed the very first cells to pass the blueprint for sex/liver/brain down through countless generations of individual organisms and different species, or that every innovation was the result of his stepping in and fiddling with the genes? Do you think he grabbed hold of a pair of primates and reorganized their "internal physiology and psychological behaviors" (your terms) so that one minute they were apes and the next they were humans? Ditto for every single innovation you can think of: a programme dormant for a few thousand million years suddenly produces livers etc.; or God decides one day to put livers (plus all the necessary link-ups) in a collection of his existing creatures? > -I will try to answer these later, but unfortunately I am out of time at the moment.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Intelligence
DHW (quoting Tony): "God most likely developed an emergent design, where a relatively small number of rules and constants allow for a near infinite variety, and then built layers of information into that." I find the wording of this quite difficult to follow. By "developed an emergent design", do you mean he kept tinkering with the design as things went along? And does "then built layers of information into that" mean further tinkering? TONY: Emergent design means that you start with a very basic set of guiding principals that form the framework for your entire creation. For example, we have the underlying laws of Quantum Physics and physics that guide all other actions/reactions in the physical universe. They are partially deterministic in nature, ascribing what may and may not happen when certain events come to pass. They do not, in and of themselves, put any events into motion, but only form the guiding principals that guide the outcome of those events once triggered. I shan't reproduce the rest of your post, which deals largely with game design, because interesting though it is, I can't see that it favours one hypothesis over another. We know that materials have combined to form functioning systems (our solar system, living organisms). The theist hypothesis is that an inexplicable, self-aware "first cause" deliberately did the combining; the materialist hypothesis is that the combinations came about by chance; my inbetween hypothesis ascribes them to "first cause" unselfconscious "intelligent" energy within the materials it formed. None of these hypotheses can be swallowed without a large dose of faith. You have quite rightly questioned mine, and now I'm questioning yours. My problem with the passage quoted at the start of this post is your use of "developed..." and "then...", which suggests tinkering around. That is why I've tried to pin down the process implied by your God hypothesis: "Do you believe that God pre-programmed the very first cells to pass the blueprint for sex/liver/brain down through countless generations of individual organisms and different species, or that every innovation was the result of his stepping in and fiddling with the genes?" I do hope you will find time to answer, as this is the question I'm really concerned with.
Intelligence
by David Turell , Saturday, March 09, 2013, 14:51 (4275 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:I've tried to pin down the process implied by your God hypothesis: "Do you believe that God pre-programmed the very first cells to pass the blueprint for sex/liver/brain down through countless generations of individual organisms and different species, or that every innovation was the result of his stepping in and fiddling with the genes?" I do hope you will find time to answer, as this is the question I'm really concerned with.-With our growing knowledge of epigenetics and the newer findings of orphan genes, I think most is preplanning of genome abilities to allow intensely investigative solutions, which is why we see so much convergence, seven types of eyes as the best example. Tweaking as a sharp demarcation is not seen in the gene record. I suppose God could be so subtle as to go unnoticed. But I doubt it.
Intelligence
Dhw (to Tony): I've tried to pin down the process implied by your God hypothesis: "Do you believe that God pre-programmed the very first cells to pass the blueprint for sex/liver/brain down through countless generations of individual organisms and different species, or that every innovation was the result of his stepping in and fiddling with the genes?" I do hope you will find time to answer, as this is the question I'm really concerned with.-DAVID: With our growing knowledge of epigenetics and the newer findings of orphan genes, I think most is preplanning of genome abilities to allow intensely investigative [innovative?] solutions, which is why we see so much convergence, seven types of eyes as the best example. Tweaking as a sharp demarcation is not seen in the gene record. I suppose God could be so subtle as to go unnoticed. But I doubt it.-So do you believe that God pre-programmed the very first cells to pass the blueprint for the liver down through countless generations of individual organisms and different species, or do you believe that one day he popped a few readymade livers into a few existing organisms?
Intelligence
by David Turell , Monday, March 11, 2013, 14:28 (4273 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:So do you believe that God pre-programmed the very first cells to pass the blueprint for the liver down through countless generations of individual organisms and different species, or do you believe that one day he popped a few readymade livers into a few existing organisms?-As I stated, I think the genome contained, from the beginning, the investigative potential to develop whatever was/is needed to be developed to advance from bacteria to us. God did not plop in livers, but the digestive need of the Cambrian organisms required their immediate development, and the genome found a way to do it through the pre-planned mechanisms, which we will find in the next 10-20 years. At that point agnosticism will disappear.
Intelligence
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, March 15, 2013, 04:44 (4269 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: I shan't reproduce the rest of your post, which deals largely with game design, because interesting though it is, I can't see that it favours one hypothesis over another. -Because it requires a designer. Someone to design the rules carefully and ensure that they are balanced. That takes foresight, and does not happen by chance. > > DHW: My problem with the passage quoted at the start of this post is your use of "developed..." and "then...", which suggests tinkering around. That is why I've tried to pin down the process implied by your God hypothesis: "Do you believe that God pre-programmed the very first cells to pass the blueprint for sex/liver/brain down through countless generations of individual organisms and different species, or that every innovation was the result of his stepping in and fiddling with the genes?" I do hope you will find time to answer, as this is the question I'm really concerned with.-There is no doubt that it was done in stages. How much tinkering was done in between those stages is anyone's guess, but even the Bible acknowledges that humans were among the last new species, which corresponds with what we know from the archaeological record.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Intelligence
In our discussions on the origin of the universe and life, I've tried to extend the conventional Chance/Design "first cause" hypotheses through a version of panpsychism, whereby energy/matter has varying degrees of intelligence, as evinced by the varying degrees of intelligence we perceive in plant and animal life.-DHW: I shan't reproduce the rest of your post, which deals largely with game design, because interesting though it is, I can't see that it favours one hypothesis over another. -TONY: Because it requires a designer. Someone to design the rules carefully and ensure that they are balanced. That takes foresight, and does not happen by chance. -We know that games were designed by humans, but that does not prove that the guiding principles of physics or biochemistry were deliberately designed by an unknowable, inexplicable, indefinable super-intelligence that came from nowhere. It can be and frequently is argued that the guiding principles are simply a natural way for materials to behave, whether that has come about by chance or through an innate, unselfconscious intelligence. None of these three hypotheses have any scientific backing, and all are equally dependent on faith.-DHW: My problem with the passage quoted at the start of this post is your use of "developed..." and "then...", which suggests tinkering around. That is why I've tried to pin down the process implied by your God hypothesis: "Do you believe that God pre-programmed the very first cells to pass the blueprint for sex/liver/brain down through countless generations of individual organisms and different species, or that every innovation was the result of his stepping in and fiddling with the genes?" I do hope you will find time to answer, as this is the question I'm really concerned with.-TONY: There is no doubt that it was done in stages. How much tinkering was done in between those stages is anyone's guess, but even the Bible acknowledges that humans were among the last new species, which corresponds with what we know from the archaeological record.-We are certainly not going to argue over stages (I believe evolution happened), or over the late arrival of humans. David believes humans were God's original purpose, and were therefore pre-planned. He believes that "God did not plop in livers", but "the genome found a way to do it", which I take to mean that what we have called "the intelligent genome" invented the liver. In other words, the liver was not built into the preprogramming of the very first cells, but its invention depended on the "intelligence" of the genome and the needs imposed or the opportunities offered by the Cambrian environment. Perhaps, though, you believe that your tinkering God did "plop in livers" ... hence my question about preprogramming and intervention. I don't know how far your beliefs coincide with David's. We may apply the principle of interaction between the inventive genome and the environment to every single innovation that led from bacteria to humans. For me, this represents a major argument against David's anthropocentric view of evolution. (For more details, do please read my response to him, 12 March at 12.29.) Of course one can and should ask where the genome's inventive "intelligence" sprang from, just as one can and should ask where God's inventive intelligence sprang from, but that takes us back to our three equally faith-dependent "first cause" hypotheses.
Intelligence
by David Turell , Saturday, March 16, 2013, 14:16 (4268 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: For me, this represents a major argument against David's anthropocentric view of evolution. (For more details, do please read my response to him, 12 March at 12.29.) Of course one can and should ask where the genome's inventive "intelligence" sprang from, just as one can and should ask where God's inventive intelligence sprang from, but that takes us back to our three equally faith-dependent "first cause" hypotheses.-Since we agree there has to be a first cause, there must be a first cause for intelligent information. Only chance or design can do the creating of this information. A chance creation of information? From what? It is an oxymoron. Designing coherent information requires an intelligence. That is not an oxymoronic statement. Incoherent information? We are back to chance. By necessity an intelligent mind has always existed. Ask Aristotle.
Intelligence
dhw: For me, this represents a major argument against David's anthropocentric view of evolution. (For more details, do please read my response to him, 12 March at 12.29.) Of course one can and should ask where the genome's inventive "intelligence" sprang from, just as one can and should ask where God's inventive intelligence sprang from, but that takes us back to our three equally faith-dependent "first cause" hypotheses.-DAVID: Since we agree there has to be a first cause, there must be a first cause for intelligent information. Only chance or design can do the creating of this information. A chance creation of information? From what? It is an oxymoron. Designing coherent information requires an intelligence. That is not an oxymoronic statement. Incoherent information? We are back to chance. By necessity an intelligent mind has always existed. Ask Aristotle.-What is "intelligent information"? A chunk of rock contains a bookful of information, but it takes an intelligent mind to extract it and systematize it. That doesn't mean the rock was designed and created by an intelligent mind. Even in your own hypothesis, where do you draw the line: did God design every rock? Every mountain? Every star? Every black hole? Every constellation? Information is the facts we humans extract from whatever exists, but the only intelligence we know of is that of ourselves and, to a lesser degree, that of our fellow animals. The first cause MAY have been the self-aware, creative energy you call God; it MAY have been a totally mindless energy forever transmuting itself into different combinations of matter, some of which chanced to form working systems; it MAY have been a form of energy with a degree of "intelligence" through which eventually it created matter capable of evolving into greater intelligence. None of these hypotheses is true "by necessity" ... they are all equally riddled with uncertainties, although each of them could have produced the information which our intelligent minds extrapolate from the resultant materials. No point in asking Aristotle. He didn't know any more than we do.-I was delighted to see the latest review of Nagel, for which many thanks:-http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=1-QUOTE: "The positive mission Nagel undertakes in Mind and Cosmos is to outline, cautiously, a possible Third Way between theism and materialism, given that the first is unacceptable—emotionally, if not intellectually—and the second is untenable. Perhaps matter itself has a bias toward producing conscious creatures. Nature in that case would be "teleological"—not random, not fully subject to chance, but tending toward a particular end. Our mental life would be accounted for—phew!—without reference to God."-It would seem that he really is looking for a third way along the lines of my "panpsychist" hypothesis. But I prefer my nebulous "intelligence" to his nebulous "teleology"!-Thanks also for the article on apoptosis
AVID: Means a cell death process. Cells are programmed to die and this aspect of life is an important story in evolution:-http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/important-work-on-cell-co_b_2871689.html-QUOTE: "Although we now have a great deal of information about the complex biochemical events involved in executing programmed cell death, the nature of the existential decision-making process remains mysterious. How cells make these signal-influenced choices is a major focus of contemporary, 21st Century research."-Once again, we have instances of a form of "intelligence" we do not understand. Cells like ants like crows like dogs like humans have their own means of communicating and of taking decisions. Applied to energy transmuted into matter, this innate "intelligence" is Nagel's "third way".
Intelligence
by David Turell , Monday, March 18, 2013, 17:03 (4266 days ago) @ dhw
>dhw: What is "intelligent information"? A chunk of rock contains a bookful of information, but it takes an intelligent mind to extract it and systematize it. That doesn't mean the rock was designed and created by an intelligent mind. -The information I am referring to is the information that creates the complex design of the univrse, the even more complex design of living matter. Inorganic matter such as rocks contain information about crystaline structure, mineral content, presence of elements, etc. However, this information does not detail any complex active design, because there is none. - > dhw: QUOTE: " Perhaps matter itself has a bias toward producing conscious creatures. Nature in that case would be "teleological"—not random, not fully subject to chance, but tending toward a particular end. Our mental life would be accounted for—phew!—without reference to God[/i]." > > It would seem that he really is looking for a third way along the lines of my "panpsychist" hypothesis. But I prefer my nebulous "intelligence" to his nebulous "teleology"! > > Once again, we have instances of a form of "intelligence" we do not understand. Cells like ants like crows like dogs like humans have their own means of communicating and of taking decisions. Applied to energy transmuted into matter, this innate "intelligence" is Nagel's "third way".-Life arrived quickly on Earth. And the first life forms were very complex, based on Archaea studies. There is nothing innate about the intelligence that made life. Rocks can't think and the Earth was nothing but rocks, a little soil and water when life started in the oceans. And meteorites did not bring the right amino acids or other organic molecules to make RNA. Darwin's warm, little pond is a pipedream, not Chuck's fault for imagining it as he didn't know any better, but Darwinists clinging to the dream is what is maddening.
Intelligence
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, March 19, 2013, 07:24 (4265 days ago) @ dhw
I know my biblical approach to understanding is certainly not the popular course. I am quite used to being mocked for it, called various names and having slurs made against my intelligence. (Not by anyone here, just in general) But, I cannot help but see that even a seemingly simple rock, with its 'book loads' of information, must be the product of design. In light of Dawkin ilk, how fitting:-2 Peter 3: Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.-The rules governing the way the molecules bind together; the rules governing the lattices that are formed; the rules governing the geochemical processes that formed them; these things and so much more are too complex, too elegant, and too perfect to be the product of anything other than carefully orchestrated design. Let's forget the topic of life for the moment. The very rocks themselves scream out that they were designed. There are hundreds of different types, some of which even change over time. How beautifully and elegantly designed are the forces that allow such variation to come from so called 'simple' processes. -Do not dismiss the point of my argument by thinking that it only applies to games. Games, in essence, are a set of rules that govern activity in such a way that they are found 'enjoyable' to people. What are physics, biology, cosmology, geology, or any other science for that matter, but disciplines and lenses for studying the most elegant set of rules in existence? Rules that allow for people to 'enjoy' life in this universe. God is the greatest game designer ever, and this existence is the greatest game ever designed. -Random chance, whether through pure chance or through the inventive processes of living elements that have demonstrated no inventive capability, does not possess sufficient explanatory power because it only seeks to explain one minor element in a design that is so much grander in scale that it boggles the mind.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Intelligence
TONY: I know my biblical approach to understanding is certainly not the popular course. I am quite used to being mocked for it, called various names and having slurs made against my intelligence. (Not by anyone here, just in general) I hope you will never be mocked on this website for your beliefs, but you will certainly be challenged! TONY: In light of Dawkin ilk, how fitting: 2 Peter 3: Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.-If I remember rightly, Dawkins and his ilk (and dhw and his ilk) will be physically resurrected on the new earth, judged, and killed off again, but this time for good. And although the bible tells us to fear God, it doesn't mean fear. All part of what you later call "the greatest game". You have resurrected an old chestnut. Are we going to judge it and kill it off again (for good)?-I don't want to shorten the rest of your post, because it's full of profound observations, beautifully expressed. I also agree with most of what you say, but there is an insoluble problem which I will try to formulate at the end.-TONY: The rules governing the way the molecules bind together; the rules governing the lattices that are formed; the rules governing the geochemical processes that formed them; these things and so much more are too complex, too elegant, and too perfect to be the product of anything other than carefully orchestrated design. Let's forget the topic of life for the moment. The very rocks themselves scream out that they were designed. There are hundreds of different types, some of which even change over time. How beautifully and elegantly designed are the forces that allow such variation to come from so called 'simple' processes. Do not dismiss the point of my argument by thinking that it only applies to games. Games, in essence, are a set of rules that govern activity in such a way that they are found 'enjoyable' to people. What are physics, biology, cosmology, geology, or any other science for that matter, but disciplines and lenses for studying the most elegant set of rules in existence? Rules that allow for people to 'enjoy' life in this universe. God is the greatest game designer ever, and this existence is the greatest game ever designed. Random chance, whether through pure chance or through the inventive processes of living elements that have demonstrated no inventive capability, does not possess sufficient explanatory power because it only seeks to explain one minor element in a design that is so much grander in scale that it boggles the mind.-My problem lies not so much in what you say as in what you don't and can't say. I believe that humans evolved from earlier forms of life that were not capable of the feats humans can achieve. When we see a machine or a building, read a novel, listen to a symphony, we marvel at the ingenuity of the human mind. How much more marvellous, then, must be the mind that you believe created the human mind, and created the mechanisms that led from bacteria to us. It is inconceivable to you that the great minds which created the complex, beautiful and elegant machines, buildings, novels, symphonies could be anything other than the products of deliberate design. And yet you seem to have no difficulty believing that the infinitely greater mind that created ours was NOT designed. Nebulous concepts like "first cause" do nothing to hide the total illogicality of this way of thinking. If you can believe in an undesigned SUPER-intelligence, why can't you believe in an undesigned and evolving lesser intelligence, or in an eternal lottery which eventually came up with the right numbers? There is no demonstrable evidence for any of these hypotheses, and although one must be closer to the truth than the others, none of them possess "sufficient explanatory power" to convince anyone without a large helping of irrational faith. That is why I remain an ignorant, but nonetheless marvelling, mind-boggled agnostic.
Intelligence
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, March 22, 2013, 10:07 (4262 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: My problem lies not so much in what you say as in what you don't and can't say. I believe that humans evolved from earlier forms of life that were not capable of the feats humans can achieve. When we see a machine or a building, read a novel, listen to a symphony, we marvel at the ingenuity of the human mind. How much more marvellous, then, must be the mind that you believe created the human mind, and created the mechanisms that led from bacteria to us. It is inconceivable to you that the great minds which created the complex, beautiful and elegant machines, buildings, novels, symphonies could be anything other than the products of deliberate design. And yet you seem to have no difficulty believing that the infinitely greater mind that created ours was NOT designed. Nebulous concepts like "first cause" do nothing to hide the total illogicality of this way of thinking. If you can believe in an undesigned SUPER-intelligence, why can't you believe in an undesigned and evolving lesser intelligence, or in an eternal lottery which eventually came up with the right numbers? There is no demonstrable evidence for any of these hypotheses, and although one must be closer to the truth than the others, none of them possess "sufficient explanatory power" to convince anyone without a large helping of irrational faith. That is why I remain an ignorant, but nonetheless marvelling, mind-boggled agnostic.- But I can, and have said. It is far less of a stretch to think that one form, comprised entirely of energy, given an extreme amount of time, could organize into an intelligence that could then plot, plan and design than it is to think of a ton of pre-existing rules and laws that are all 'just so' randomly organizing into a myriad of self-sustaining stable unintelligent elements which then in turn reorganize again into a myriad of living elements all working together harmoniously in a unified existence. -When I look at something known to be design, I understand implicitly that the designer did not pull it out of then air. It took years of study in different fields in order to pull them all together into a unique, stable, arrangement. I have no issue with freely giving God all the time in eternity to think, learn, plot, plan, study, or anything else. Just because the Bible details the creation of our universe, it does not detail what happened before then, and in fact explicitly states that there was 'time indefinite" stretching out before the creation of the universe. -No, this doesn't tackle the nature of what formed God, or how God came into existence. I am as ignorant on that as it is possible to be. But, as I said, it is infinitely more reasonable to me for a single entity to come into existence unaided and grow to organization before creating something new than for all of creation to come into existence unaided and organised. It is infinitely easier to organize energy than it is to organize matter.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Intelligence
by David Turell , Friday, March 22, 2013, 14:41 (4262 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> tony: No, this doesn't tackle the nature of what formed God, or how God came into existence. I am as ignorant on that as it is possible to be. But, as I said, it is infinitely more reasonable to me for a single entity to come into existence unaided and grow to organization before creating something new than for all of creation to come into existence unaided and organised. It is infinitely easier to organize energy than it is to organize matter.-"Indeed, by 1982, the famous, Nobel-equivalent prize winning Astrophysicist (and life-long agnostic) Sir Fred Hoyle, went on quite plain public record in an Omni Lecture: -"Once we see that life is cosmic it is sensible to suppose that intelligence is cosmic. Now problems of order, such as the sequences of amino acids in the chains which constitute the enzymes and other proteins, are precisely the problems that become easy once a directed intelligence enters the picture, as was recognised long ago by James Clerk Maxwell in his invention of what is known in physics as the Maxwell demon. The difference between an intelligent ordering, whether of words, fruit boxes, amino acids, or the Rubik cube, and merely random shufflings can be fantastically large, even as large as a number that would fill the whole volume of Shakespeare's plays with its zeros. So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true." [[Evolution from Space (The Omni Lecture[ --> Jan 12th 1982]), Enslow Publishers, 1982, pg. 28.]"-This is Hoyle's famous quote which stems from his '747 arising from a tornado in a junk yard'.-It is infinitely easier to organize matter (into a building, for example) than to organized matter into life. Design is so obvious, why not accept it as Hoyle did?
Intelligence
TONY: [...] I have no issue with freely giving God all the time in eternity to think, learn, plot, plan, study, or anything else. [...] No, this doesn't tackle the nature of what formed God, or how God came into existence. I am as ignorant on that as it is possible to be. But, as I said, it is infinitely more reasonable to me for a single entity to come into existence unaided and grow to organization before creating something new than for all of creation to come into existence unaided and organised. It is infinitely easier to organize energy than it is to organize matter.-Like David, I think something must have been here forever, and it seems all three of us are agreed that it is energy. We also agree that energy can transmute itself into matter, and that prior to "creation" or to "the big bang" (or whatever else you believe) there was "all the time in eternity" for that energy to operate. The first cause for all of us, then, is energy that has had forever to produce infinite combinations of matter. What follows on from that is pure conjecture. If by "single entity" you mean first-cause energy (what else could you mean?), either it was always conscious of itself, or it evolved consciousness, or it never had any consciousness of its own. "Grow to organization" is a wonderfully vague expression which could cover all three hypotheses we've been discussing: a materialist can just as easily claim that through an eternity and infinity of random combinations, matter "grew to organization". "It is infinitely easier to organize energy than it is to organize matter" is another impressive pronouncement, but what does it mean? What is supposed to do the organizing? Do you mean it's easier for energy to organize energy than for energy to organize matter? What has energy organized itself into, other than the material universe we know? Or are you trying to say that it's easier for energy to become conscious of itself than it is for matter? If so, how do you know? The only consciousness we know of is our own, and experience shows us that we can lose that consciousness when the materials of the brain are interfered with. A materialist will therefore argue that consciousness must be a product of materials. Others can point to psychic phenomena like NDEs and OBEs, which suggest that consciousness is independent of materials. Nobody in fact has a clue about the origin of consciousness or of life. If you opt for one hypothesis in preference to another, you can rationalize as much as you like, but you cannot exclude the objections raised by the other side. You can only say, as you have done, "I am as ignorant [...] as it is possible to be." I would say we are all equally ignorant about all these fundamental questions, which is why I find it so hard to emulate those who, to use your expression, are able to "fabricate their own reality."-******-David has quoted Fred Hoyle's argument in favour of design. It is as convincing as your own arguments, David, and should put anyone off being an atheist. You have also pointed out that Hoyle was a life-long agnostic. Why do you think he was an agnostic and not a theist?
Intelligence
by David Turell , Saturday, March 23, 2013, 15:28 (4261 days ago) @ dhw
> Dhw: David has quoted Fred Hoyle's argument in favour of design. It is as convincing as your own arguments, David, and should put anyone off being an atheist. You have also pointed out that Hoyle was a life-long agnostic. Why do you think he was an agnostic and not a theist?-Because, like you, he cannot imagine the source of the design, or be willing to go beyond the acceptance that design occurred. It is like racing to the edge of the cliff and screeching to a halt. That is why faith is compared to leaping across the chasm.
Intelligence
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, March 23, 2013, 17:53 (4261 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: Like David, I think something must have been here forever, and it seems all three of us are agreed that it is energy. We also agree that energy can transmute itself into matter, and that prior to "creation" or to "the big bang" (or whatever else you believe) there was "all the time in eternity" for that energy to operate. The first cause for all of us, then, is energy that has had forever to produce infinite combinations of matter. What follows on from that is pure conjecture. -Pretty much, though some conjecture is more logical than others. ->DHW: If by "single entity" you mean first-cause energy (what else could you mean?), either it was always conscious of itself, or it evolved consciousness, or it never had any consciousness of its own. -Yes.->DHW: "Grow to organization" is a wonderfully vague expression which could cover all three hypotheses we've been discussing: a materialist can just as easily claim that through an eternity and infinity of random combinations, matter "grew to organization".- > > "It is infinitely easier to organize energy than it is to organize matter" is another impressive pronouncement, but what does it mean? What is supposed to do the organizing? Do you mean it's easier for energy to organize energy than for energy to organize matter? What has energy organized itself into, other than the material universe we know? Or are you trying to say that it's easier for energy to become conscious of itself than it is for matter? If so, how do you know? > -Damn. You had to drop the ball... and you were doing so well! Energy is fundamentally different than matter. Energy is eternal, matter is not. Information and Energy can coexist in a constant state of flux indefinitely without any outside input. Matter can not. Matter is entirely incapable of becoming conscious at all without the introduction of information and energy. Both are requirements, neither can be omitted. ->DHW: The only consciousness we know of is our own, and experience shows us that we can lose that consciousness when the materials of the brain are interfered with.-No, ours is simply the only conscious we openly acknowledge consistently. We are well aware of other forms of consciousness, though we only acknowledge them as such when it suits us. If we know that lower forms of consciousness exists, then it stands to reason that there is a very good probability that a higher form exists. - >DHW: A materialist will therefore argue that consciousness must be a product of materials. -And I would tell the materialist to discharge all energy, electrical and chemical, from the brain, leaving only the matter, and show me consciousness.- >DHW: Others can point to psychic phenomena like NDEs and OBEs, which suggest that consciousness is independent of materials.-Yes, energy. More importantly, energy can interact with the material and affect changes. (Solid State Memory for example)->DHW: Nobody in fact has a clue about the origin of consciousness or of life. -We have lot's of clues. It is too our discredit that we choose to ignore them. ->DHW: If you opt for one hypothesis in preference to another, you can rationalize as much as you like, but you cannot exclude the objections raised by the other side. -That would depend on the objection. See, my world view does not technically exclude the possibility of evolution in some form, or that gradual naturalistic processes may have been used to get everything going. However, the naturalistic world view DOES preclude the possibility of any outside intelligence. Hrmmmm.->DHW: You can only say, as you have done, "I am as ignorant [...] as it is possible to be." I would say we are all equally ignorant about all these fundamental questions, which is why I find it so hard to emulate those who, to use your expression, are able to "fabricate their own reality."-But you do! In your reality, everything is unknown and unknowable, and therefore it is impossible for you to take a stand for anything until all things have been revealed in their entirety(i.e. never). You have asked me numerous times very pointed questions about my world view and beliefs, and now, I am going to ask you one, and only one. -DHW, why do you find it impossible to take a leap of faith, in one direction or the other, instead of sitting on the fence getting a sore crotch?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Intelligence
by David Turell , Saturday, March 23, 2013, 18:28 (4261 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony: DHW, why do you find it impossible to take a leap of faith, in one direction or the other, instead of sitting on the fence getting a sore crotch?-I've asked the same question over and over. He doesn't want to reach a logical conclusion, as he is not willing to push his thinking that far. Still on the pickets.
Intelligence
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, March 23, 2013, 18:47 (4261 days ago) @ David Turell
Unfortunately, the only possible reason I can conceive of that someone as educated and rational as DHW would not have already surmounted is less than flattering. Instead of saddling our friend with my speculation, I thought I would give him the opportunity to provide the information himself.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Intelligence
DHW: "Grow to organization" is a wonderfully vague expression which could cover all three hypotheses we've been discussing. [...] "It is infinitely easier to organize energy than it is to organize matter" is another impressive pronouncement, but what does it mean? What is supposed to do the organizing? Do you mean it's easier for energy to organize energy than for energy to organize matter? What has energy organized itself into, other than the material universe we know? Or are you trying to say that it's easier for energy to become conscious of itself than it is for matter? If so, how do you know?-TONY: Damn. You had to drop the ball... and you were doing so well! Energy is fundamentally different than matter. Energy is eternal, matter is not. Information and Energy can coexist in a constant state of flux indefinitely without any outside input. Matter can not. Matter is entirely incapable of becoming conscious at all without the introduction of information and energy. Both are requirements, neither can be omitted.-None of this makes your two earlier statements any more meaningful, but attack is the best method of defence! However, you're right, I'm also guilty of sloppy thinking because I've left out the vital link I'd emphasized in earlier posts: e.g. 1 March at 18.25: "If energy transmutes itself into matter, and matter can evolve, it doesn't seem unreasonable to suppose that the "mind energy" (intelligence) that formed and is contained within the matter might also evolve." 3 March at 16.34: ""Intelligent energy" is within the matter, and as the matter evolves, so does the "intelligent" energy." This is central to my whole "panpsychist" hypothesis, and on 5 March at 12.17, I pointed out that it may well provide an explanation for psychic experiences. DHW: The only consciousness we know of is our own, and experience shows us that we can lose that consciousness when the materials of the brain are interfered with. TONY: No, ours is simply the only conscious we openly acknowledge consistently. [...] If we know that lower forms of consciousness exists, then it stands to reason that there is a very good probability that a higher form exists. I was using "know" to indicate a fact, unlike my hypothetical lesser forms of consciousness (the "intelligent cell/genome" and perhaps even "intelligent" chemicals). However, I don't see why, just because there are lower forms, it "stands to reason that there is a very good probability that a higher form exists". That is the subject of the whole debate! -DHW: If you opt for one hypothesis in preference to another, you can rationalize as much as you like, but you cannot exclude the objections raised by the other side. -TONY: That would depend on the objection. See, my world view does not technically exclude the possibility of evolution in some form, or that gradual naturalistic processes may have been used to get everything going. However, the naturalistic world view DOES preclude the possibility of any outside intelligence. Hrmmmm.-My comment applies to both atheistic materialism and theism. Your world view excludes the possibility that first-cause energy is mindless.-DHW: I would say we are all equally ignorant about all these fundamental questions, which is why I find it so hard to emulate those who, to use your expression, are able to "fabricate their own reality."-TONY: But you do! In your reality, everything is unknown and unknowable, and therefore it is impossible for you to take a stand for anything until all things have been revealed in their entirety (i.e. never). -Everything? I have strong feelings about many subjects, but until I'm confronted by convincing (to me) evidence for 1) the existence of God, and 2) convincing (to me) explanations for the source of life and of consciousness, I'll keep an open mind. If, in this context, being unable to commit myself to any one fabrication of reality means fabricating my own reality, I plead guilty to the charge, though I don't understand its logic. TONY: DHW, why do you find it impossible to take a leap of faith, in one direction or the other, instead of sitting on the fence getting a sore crotch?-DAVID: I've asked the same question over and over. He doesn't want to reach a logical conclusion, as he is not willing to push his thinking that far. Still on the pickets. (Earlier: "[...] faith is compared to leaping across the chasm".)-I'm touched by all this concern for my crotch, but you have both answered your own question. A leap of faith, by definition, necessitates the abandonment of reason and a deliberate closing of the eyes to all the huge gaps in one or other of the arguments. I have great respect for your two different faiths, and for that of materialism (though I abhor fundamentalism on either side). However, you can both understand why I do not take the leap of faith into the atheist field. And an atheist will understand why I do not leap into yours. I'm surprised that two such reasonable men should regard it as unreasonable that I cannot emulate your self-confessed unreasonableness.-***-I shall answer both your posts on trilobite eyes tomorrow. In the meantime, David, thank you for the post "Hunter on epigenetics". Another powerful argument for the "intelligent genome".
Intelligence
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, March 24, 2013, 20:01 (4260 days ago) @ dhw
> DHW: I was using "know" to indicate a fact, unlike my hypothetical lesser forms of consciousness (the "intelligent cell/genome" and perhaps even "intelligent" chemicals). However, I don't see why, just because there are lower forms, it "stands to reason that there is a very good probability that a higher form exists". That is the subject of the whole debate! -We know animals are conscious. So we do "know" there are levels of consciousness other than our own. Presuming to be the highest form is mere arrogance. - > > DHW: If you opt for one hypothesis in preference to another, you can rationalize as much as you like, but you cannot exclude the objections raised by the other side. > > TONY: That would depend on the objection. See, my world view does not technically exclude the possibility of evolution in some form, or that gradual naturalistic processes may have been used to get everything going. However, the naturalistic world view DOES preclude the possibility of any outside intelligence. Hrmmmm. > >DHW: My comment applies to both atheistic materialism and theism. Your world view excludes the possibility that first-cause energy is mindless. >-Actually, it doesn't. The origin of a singular entity we call God very well could have been mindless energy. Or it could have been the Something from Nothing Harry Potter Physics explanation. You will not find any speculation about the origin of God in the Bible.- > DHW: I would say we are all equally ignorant about all these fundamental questions, which is why I find it so hard to emulate those who, to use your expression, are able to "fabricate their own reality." > > TONY: But you do! In your reality, everything is unknown and unknowable, and therefore it is impossible for you to take a stand for anything until all things have been revealed in their entirety (i.e. never). > > Everything? I have strong feelings about many subjects, but until I'm confronted by convincing (to me) evidence for 1) the existence of God, and 2) convincing (to me) explanations for the source of life and of consciousness, I'll keep an open mind. If, in this context, being unable to commit myself to any one fabrication of reality means fabricating my own reality, I plead guilty to the charge, though I don't understand its logic.-I would conjecture, as I have previously, that unless you were able to sit down and have tea with God himself, you would not believe. (Yes, I am exaggerating slightly for effect... a firm handshake and an impromptu miracle might be enough...) The point being, all jokes aside, you have never qualified what you would consider evidence, thereby precluding the possibility of anyone every presenting you with any evidence other than direct observation; a standard so rigorous that even science doesn't demand it(dark matter/energy/gravity).-- I will answer more later. It is well past my bedtime at the moment.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Intelligence
by David Turell , Sunday, March 24, 2013, 20:23 (4260 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony: We know animals are conscious. So we do "know" there are levels of consciousness other than our own. Presuming to be the highest form is mere arrogance. -Frans de Waal on animal thinking capacity. They obviously do and can collate inventive thought to a degree, but of course, nothing like we can.:-http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323869604578370574285382756.html?KEYWORDS=Frans+de+Waal- >> > > > dhw: Everything? I have strong feelings about many subjects, but until I'm confronted by convincing (to me) evidence for 1) the existence of God, and 2) convincing (to me) explanations for the source of life and of consciousness, I'll keep an open mind. If, in this context, being unable to commit myself to any one fabrication of reality means fabricating my own reality, I plead guilty to the charge, though I don't understand its logic. > > Tony:I would conjecture, as I have previously, that unless you were able to sit down and have tea with God himself, you would not believe. (Yes, I am exaggerating slightly for effect... a firm handshake and an impromptu miracle might be enough...) The point being, all jokes aside, you have never qualified what you would consider evidence, thereby precluding the possibility of anyone every presenting you with any evidence other than direct observation; a standard so rigorous that even science doesn't demand it(dark matter/energy/gravity).-The best evidence is the fractured theory of evolution. Chance is not an option as dhw admits. My Talbott entry just preceding this shows how organism- directed it is. The screams from the Darwinists over their loss of 'junk' DNA, a prime timber in their edifice, are a kind of inverted proof. How much self-directed complexity in the genome do you need before a rational person must admit that a designer is a necessary conclusion?
Intelligence
by BBella , Monday, March 25, 2013, 06:14 (4259 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Hope this post doesn't get too confusing. Sorry to back track a bit. I'm just catching up on the posts. Tony, this recent post brought out a question I've sat on the back burner and let brew. - >>DHW: My comment applies to both atheistic materialism and theism. Your world view excludes the possibility that first-cause energy is mindless. > > > > Actually, it doesn't. The origin of a singular entity we call God very well could have been mindless energy. Or it could have been the Something from Nothing Harry Potter Physics explanation. You will not find any speculation about the origin of God in the Bible.-I was glad to see your "open-minded" response above about the possibilities of the nature of the first-cause energy. I'm still pondering questions about this myself. Not sure of anything. But if there is a fence, I'm still sitting on it here between the " Ain and the Ain Soph."(taken from our prior discussion in January) Your quoted words from the Qabala slightly rearranged below:->...[what I call] the 'All That Is' [could be the] nebulous, having no form, purpose, intelligence, personality, infinite and unknowable. [Then] God, Ain Soph, [became] the product [from this nebulous], [by becoming] self-realization, awakening to awareness, the prime movement, first thought, or first emination. In short, it is not so much that nothing was prior to God as much as it is that it is impossible to speculate upon it."-Yet, I think this is the place we are all speculating upon. Or, the point where dhw and I are both speculating - what could be called Panpsychism (I could be wrong, dhw, correct me if so). The soup or nebulous from which "God" that you believe created all things sprung. Near correct? -You then went on to continue the quote from the Qabala: ->"Before He gave any shape to the world, before He produced any form, He was alone, without form and without resemblance to anything else. Who then can comprehend how He was before the Creation? Hence it is forbidden to lend Him any form or similitude, or even to call Him by His sacred name, or to indicate Him by a single letter or a single point. . . . But after He created the form of the Heavenly Man, He used him as a chariot wherein to descend, and He wishes to be called after His form, which is the sacred name 'YHWH'.[1]-I know it sometimes seems as tho we are stuck in a revolving door here, but maybe each time we go around something new comes of it, I know it has for me.-If the creator of all things sprung from this nebulous, I would think that the nebulous itself, before God, couldn't have been without intelligence or purpose, because from it sprung God, and it would only make sense that God sprung from some form of intelligence and/or purpose. My thinking is, if from this nebulous sprung the creator of all things, why couldn't the nebulous itself not be the creator of all things, including or apart from what we call God?
Intelligence
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, March 25, 2013, 10:25 (4259 days ago) @ BBella
Bella: I was glad to see your "open-minded" response above about the possibilities of the nature of the first-cause energy. I'm still pondering questions about this myself. Not sure of anything. But if there is a fence, I'm still sitting on it here between the " Ain and the Ain Soph."(taken from our prior discussion in January) Your quoted words from the Qabala slightly rearranged below: > > >...[what I call] the 'All That Is' [could be the] nebulous, having no form, purpose, intelligence, personality, infinite and unknowable. [Then] God, Ain Soph, [became] the product [from this nebulous], [by becoming] self-realization, awakening to awareness, the prime movement, first thought, or first emination. In short, it is not so much that nothing was prior to God as much as it is that it is impossible to speculate upon it." > > >"Before He gave any shape to the world, before He produced any form, He was alone, without form and without resemblance to anything else. Who then can comprehend how He was before the Creation? Hence it is forbidden to lend Him any form or similitude, or even to call Him by His sacred name, or to indicate Him by a single letter or a single point. . . . But after He created the form of the Heavenly Man, He used him as a chariot wherein to descend, and He wishes to be called after His form, which is the sacred name 'YHWH'.[1] > > If the creator of all things sprung from this nebulous, I would think that the nebulous itself, before God, couldn't have been without intelligence or purpose, because from it sprung God, and it would only make sense that God sprung from some form of intelligence and/or purpose. My thinking is, if from this nebulous sprung the creator of all things, why couldn't the nebulous itself not be the creator of all things, including or apart from what we call God?-To answer your question, it is because the nebulous energy(Ain) and God(Ain Soph) are one and the same. They are not separate. The Ain Soph is the awareness of the Ain, YHWH is the form created to be the vehicle for the Ain Soph. The first and second events are emergent, not separative. Just as you are certainly not separate from the energy, information, or form that you are comprised of, neither is Ain/Ain Soph/YHWH. Yet, every act from the first to last is an act of refinement via separation. "Father" to "Son", male to female, dark and light, earth and sky, etc etc etc... but, like the individual and specific cells within your body, they are separate, but not. Separate but in unity(If that makes sense). They are more than complementary, they are infinitely greater than the sum of their parts.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Evolution of Intelligence
I hope no-one will mind if I skip the discussions on our fellow animals (we agree they have varying levels of intelligence) and on my apparent need to have tea with God. I'd like instead to focus on some recent quotes:-TONY: The origin of a singular entity we call God very well could have been mindless energy.-I'd forgotten Tony's earlier references to the Qabala (my apologies), which BBella remembers: "[what I call] the 'All that Is' [could be the] nebulous, having no form, purpose, intelligence, personality, infinite and unknowable." The next stage, though, is an "awakening to awareness". This is the great conundrum. How did "the nebulous" become aware (let alone self-aware)? For this to happen, it must have something to be aware of. Perhaps we can agree that the "nebulous" is energy, which mindlessly transmutes itself into chunks of matter, each of which contains its own "portion" of energy. The form this energy takes is temporary ... matter always changes ... but the energy is not temporary. If we accept that somewhere along the line, energy became aware (and changing matter is what it became aware of), the awareness would be that of the energy within the matter. In answer to BBella, this is the form of "panpsychism" I'm suggesting: not a single self-aware entity, but multiple germs of "intelligent energy" within multiple chunks of matter (not necessarily in ALL matter), i.e. an individually developing awareness of change from within, rather than universal awareness of nothing in particular. -BBella: My thinking is, if from this nebulous sprung the creator of all things, why couldn't the nebulous itself be the creator of all things [...]?-In my scenario nebulous energy is the first cause, but the multiple "creator" is energy becoming aware of the changing matter which it formed and in which it's embedded. In my post of 5 March at 12.17 I tried to apply the idea to psychic experiences: "It may well be that in some people, and even in some other animals, the "intelligent" energy within the brain cells makes contact with the energy of other intelligences, and after death the same process may continue (who knows?). The matter (here, the physical brain) disintegrates, and so the energy may be released along with the knowledge, information etc. it has gained during its physical lifetime. But it is released not into a single, all-knowing, universal being, but into an infinite field of different (even if interconnected) intelligences that have evolved from first-cause energy. Perhaps we can only communicate with our own form of intelligence, although we might also be able to perceive other "realities" (landscapes, sounds, events) since the energy that gives rise to them is never lost."-No single entity, but multiple intelligences which pass on information and so build complexity. This brings me to a marvellous article by Stephen L. Talbott, recommended by David: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/evolution-and-the-illusion-of-randomness It deals in detail with the non-randomness of mutations and multiple complexities which provide solid support for the concept of the "intelligent genome" ... itself a prime example of my "panpsychist" hypothesis. One sample quote:-"Here, then, is what the advocates of evolutionary mindlessness and meaninglessness would have us overlook. We must overlook, first of all, the fact that organisms are masterful participants in, and revisers of, their own genomes, taking a leading position in the most intricate, subtle, and intentional genomic "dance" one could possibly imagine. And then we must overlook the way the organism responds intelligently, and in accord with its own purposes, to whatever it encounters in its environment [...]"-David, however, asks: "How much self-directed complexity in the genome do you need before a rational person must admit that a designer is a necessary conclusion?" -Here is Talbott's answer: "Although the word has its legitimate uses, you will not find me speaking of design, simply because — as I've made abundantly clear in previous articles — organisms cannot be understood as having been designed, machine-like, whether by an engineer-God or a Blind Watchmaker elevated to god-like status. If organisms participate in a higher life, it is a participation that works from within — at a deep level the ancients recognized as that of the logos informing all things. It is a sharing of the springs of life and being, not a mere receptivity to some sort of external mechanical tinkering modeled anthropocentrically on human engineering."-The highly recommended Talbott could hardly make it clearer that in his view the intelligence comes from within. (The Neo-Platonic use of logos had the meaning of "generative intelligence".) The evolution of intelligence from mindless first-cause energy to solar systems, living cells, and our own consciousness may have come about step by step through energy gathering information from within the matter it formed, and sharing information as matter/energy increasingly combined with matter/energy. Is that any more irrational than the hypotheses 1) of chance and 2) of all energy as a single entity becoming aware of itself?-******-I'll catch up on trilobite eyes tomorrow.
Evolution of Intelligence
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, March 26, 2013, 15:16 (4258 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: I'd forgotten Tony's earlier references to the Qabala (my apologies), which BBella remembers: "[what I call] the 'All that Is' [could be the] nebulous, having no form, purpose, intelligence, personality, infinite and unknowable." -Nothing to apologize for. :)->DHW:The next stage, though, is an "awakening to awareness". This is the great conundrum. How did "the nebulous" become aware (let alone self-aware)? For this to happen, it must have something to be aware of. Perhaps we can agree that the "nebulous" is energy, which mindlessly transmutes itself into chunks of matter, each of which contains its own "portion" of energy. The form this energy takes is temporary ... matter always changes ... but the energy is not temporary. If we accept that somewhere along the line, energy became aware (and changing matter is what it became aware of), the awareness would be that of the energy within the matter. In answer to BBella, this is the form of "panpsychism" I'm suggesting: not a single self-aware entity, but multiple germs of "intelligent energy" within multiple chunks of matter (not necessarily in ALL matter), i.e. an individually developing awareness of change from within, rather than universal awareness of nothing in particular. > -The problem I see with this idea of 'chunking' is uniformity. If there were multiple intelligence each doing their own thing, we would expect to see much more chaos and much less organization. Instead, what we see is beautifully orchestrated, exceedingly complex unity, harmony, and balance. Intelligence implies an ego of sorts. Perhaps not in the way we normally think of the term, but in the sense that each intelligence would have its own agenda to work towards. The chaos that is humanity has proven that true in a most obvious fashion. When everyone works towards their own individual goals, there can be no harmony. There had to be a single unifying purpose in order for the harmony and unity that we OBSERVE to have happened.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Evolution of Intelligence
TONY: The problem I see with this idea of 'chunking' is uniformity. If there were multiple intelligence each doing their own thing, we would expect to see much more chaos and much less organization. Instead, what we see is beautifully orchestrated, exceedingly complex unity, harmony, and balance. Intelligence implies an ego of sorts. Perhaps not in the way we normally think of the term, but in the sense that each intelligence would have its own agenda to work towards. The chaos that is humanity has proven that true in a most obvious fashion. When everyone works towards their own individual goals, there can be no harmony. There had to be a single unifying purpose in order for the harmony and unity that we OBSERVE to have happened.-That is the Darwinian concept of competition, which overlooks the Margulis one of cooperation. You and I clearly observe different worlds! As I see it, the universe, life and evolution are an ongoing mixture of chaos and organization, of harmony and discord, of creation and destruction. Stars come and go, just as species have come and gone; humans and their fellow animals work together in communities, or fight and kill one another (humans more so than other animals!); cells join together in a symbiotic relationship, or they reject one another to cause disease. "When everyone works towards their own individual goals, there can be no harmony" presupposes that individual goals can't coincide with harmony. Supposing Jack has cash and John has brains, together they can create a successful business. That, I suggest to you, is the cooperative principle that has enabled multiple intelligences to join together and create harmony. Meanwhile, Bob and Bill either ignore each other or fight, in which case multiple intelligences will lead to nothing happening, mutual destruction, or the survival of the fittest ... which is another way in which unity can be established! There is no need at all for a single unified purpose, if by that you mean a universal intelligence binding everything together. Individual intelligences can bind themselves together, and create their own order. Indeed, the fact that the world is a mixture of order and disorder could even be taken as evidence against the concept of a single unifying purpose.
Evolution of Intelligence
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 27, 2013, 13:48 (4257 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: There is no need at all for a single unified purpose, if by that you mean a universal intelligence binding everything together. Individual intelligences can bind themselves together, and create their own order. Indeed, the fact that the world is a mixture of order and disorder could even be taken as evidence against the concept of a single unifying purpose.-You miss the point that I see clearly. Life is meant to be experienced and filled with challenges. Living a life in the Garden of Eden is boring. How do you know if you lived your life well unless you were challenged to overcome obstacles. One should always be introspective, self-analytic and know whether you lived life up to your expectations. Low expectation lives are seen everywhere. I don't have to list the types. High expectation lives are like the folks who visit this website, seeking and striving to find the bigger meanings as to why we were given this extraordinary gift, life. Darwin's use of competition is right on!
Evolution of Intelligence
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, March 27, 2013, 15:21 (4257 days ago) @ David Turell
dhw: There is no need at all for a single unified purpose, if by that you mean a universal intelligence binding everything together. Individual intelligences can bind themselves together, and create their own order. Indeed, the fact that the world is a mixture of order and disorder could even be taken as evidence against the concept of a single unifying purpose. > > You miss the point that I see clearly. Life is meant to be experienced and filled with challenges. Living a life in the Garden of Eden is boring. How do you know if you lived your life well unless you were challenged to overcome obstacles. One should always be introspective, self-analytic and know whether you lived life up to your expectations. Low expectation lives are seen everywhere. I don't have to list the types. High expectation lives are like the folks who visit this website, seeking and striving to find the bigger meanings as to why we were given this extraordinary gift, life. Darwin's use of competition is right on!-So let me get this right.. not only do living cells have intelligence, but inorganic material has intelligence in the form of energy, and they all work together(yet compete against each other) in such perfect balance that life is able to appear and even thrive. Not only that, those living organisms, imbued with the same energy based intelligence, compete and struggle against each other and yet still manage to keep a near perfect balance so that life can continue for who knows how long... Is that right? Because if your inanimate objects do not have the same energy based intelligence(not to mention the agency to be able to effect change), then none of that makes a bit of sense.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Evolution of Intelligence
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 27, 2013, 16:43 (4257 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
dhw: There is no need at all for a single unified purpose, if by that you mean a universal intelligence binding everything together. Individual intelligences can bind themselves together, and create their own order. Indeed, the fact that the world is a mixture of order and disorder could even be taken as evidence against the concept of a single unifying purpose. > > > > David:You miss the point that I see clearly. Life is meant to be experienced and filled with challenges. Living a life in the Garden of Eden is boring. How do you know if you lived your life well unless you were challenged to overcome obstacles. One should always be introspective, self-analytic and know whether you lived life up to your expectations. Low expectation lives are seen everywhere. I don't have to list the types. High expectation lives are like the folks who visit this website, seeking and striving to find the bigger meanings as to why we were given this extraordinary gift, life. Darwin's use of competition is right on! > > Tony:So let me get this right.. not only do living cells have intelligence, but inorganic material has intelligence in the form of energy, and they all work together(yet compete against each other) in such perfect balance that life is able to appear and even thrive. Not only that, those living organisms, imbued with the same energy based intelligence, compete and struggle against each other and yet still manage to keep a near perfect balance so that life can continue for who knows how long... Is that right? Because if your inanimate objects do not have the same energy based intelligence(not to mention the agency to be able to effect change), then none of that makes a bit of sense.-I think you are directing the above comment to dhw. It doesn't follow as an answer to my paragraph. Living cells run on information, not intelligence. Intelligence obviously gave the cells the information in the genome.
Evolution of Intelligence
by David Turell , Thursday, March 28, 2013, 14:19 (4256 days ago) @ David Turell
Primate brains reorganized over 40 million years, so not just size counts:-http://phys.org/news/2013-03-organisation-trumps-size-primate-brain.html
Evolution of Intelligence
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, March 28, 2013, 15:01 (4256 days ago) @ David Turell
Primate brains reorganized over 40 million years, so not just size counts
ure speculation...and it will never be anything more than that. It also means it is impossible to falsify the theory. I thought that was kind of a requirement in good science.-http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11555-Nature-"The molecular clock hypothesis states that DNA and protein sequences evolve at a rate that is relatively constant over time and among different organisms. A direct consequence of this constancy is that the genetic difference between any two species is proportional to the time since these species last shared a common ancestor. "- THE concept of a molecular clock grew out of the observation that proteins appear to evolve at a nearly constant rate (ZUCKERKANDaLn d PAULING 1965; WILSON,C ARLSONa nd WHITE 1977). However, as early as 197 1, OHTA and KIMURA pointed out that the rates of evolution are not constant, but rather, they vary significantly from lineage to lineage. This observation has subsequently been verified by a number of people (e.g., LANGLEY and FITCH 1974; KIMURA 1983). A common statistic that quantifies the variability in rates of evolution is R, defined as the ratio of the variance in the number of substitutionsin a lineage to the mean number. For proteins, R is usually in the range 1.0 < R < 3.4 (LANGLEYa nd FITCH 1974; KIMURA 1983; GILLESPIE 1984b, among others).-There are two very different interpretations of these estimates of R. KIMURA (1983) claims that, as R is close to one, it suggests that evolutionary rates are nearly constant and that the events of molecular evolution may be approximated by a Poisson process (for which R = 1). This interpretation is also used to support the neutral allele theory, since the substitution process for this theory is close to a Poisson process (GILLESPIaEn d LANGLEY19 79; WATTERSON 1982a,b).-A second interpretation is that inferences about the variance in evolutionary rates from the observed values of R are severely biased toward one (GILLESPIE1 98413, I986b). When this bias is accounted for, the fact that we can measure R values as large as two or three suggests that the real variance in evolutionary rates might be very large-so large, in fact, that molecular evolution may well be episodic, with bursts of substitutions separated by long periods with no substitutions. Genetics 113: 1077-1091 August, 1986. 1078 J. H. GILLESPIE- "One of the classic examples of a high mutation rate can be found in many bacteria and viruses. These organisms find it beneficial to mutate rapidly, because they reproduce in huge numbers, so losing numerous individuals doesn't hurt the species as a whole. The high rate of mutation also allows them to adapt to situations which can include the need to incubate for an extended period of time, or the introduction of new drugs which kill off many individuals within the species."-------------------------------------------------------------------------So.. essentially, the mutation rate is constant, except for when we observe it not being constant, and then it is because evolution allows for rapid adaptation for survivability, which of course did not happen for any other species but the ones we observed, because if it did that would bugger up our timelines. Oh, and since DNA can not survive more than a few million years, at best, you will never be able to falsify the 40 million year old divergence rate for which we have no evidence but assumption and speculation. Oh.. and one more thing, we have never recorded any 40 million year old DNA, so we don't REALLY have a baseline for these assumptions. We are not comparing modern humans to ancient humans, cause their DNA is pretty much the same and doesn't fit the theory. Instead, we are comparing modern human dna to monkey dna, cause we all evolved from monkeys you know, and then based on how they are different, we are estimating the time of divergence based on an assumption that is based on an enigma wrapped up in a mystery. What, you expected observations?- Sure.. I'll buy that.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Evolution of Intelligence
by David Turell , Thursday, March 28, 2013, 16:07 (4256 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: > "The molecular clock hypothesis states that DNA and protein sequences evolve at a rate that is relatively constant over time and among different organisms. A direct consequence of this constancy is that the genetic difference between any two species is proportional to the time since these species last shared a common ancestor. " > > > THE concept of a molecular clock grew out of the observation that proteins appear to evolve at a nearly constant rate (ZUCKERKANDaLn d PAULING > 1965; WILSON,C ARLSONa nd WHITE 1977). -And how do any of these observations fit into punctuated equilibrium appearance of all fossil data? They don't. It is like the eight-nine whale steps going from land to current forms. The changes between each step are enormous. Nothing gradual. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Tony: So.. essentially, the mutation rate is constant, except for when we observe it not being constant, -Darwinism is not a constant theory but repeatedly shifts to fit unexpected observations. How to you defend quicksand theory?
Evolution of Intelligence
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, March 29, 2013, 07:58 (4255 days ago) @ David Turell
Tony: So.. essentially, the mutation rate is constant, except for when we observe it not being constant, > > Darwinism is not a constant theory but repeatedly shifts to fit unexpected observations. How to you defend quicksand theory?-I don't. I mock it relentlessly for the absurdity that it is. That entire post was a criticism at the ridiculousness of it all.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Evolution of Intelligence
TONY: The problem I see with this idea of 'chunking' is uniformity. If there were multiple intelligence each doing their own thing, we would expect to see much more chaos and much less organization. Instead, what we see is beautifully orchestrated, exceedingly complex unity, harmony, and balance. Intelligence implies an ego of sorts. [...]. When everyone works towards their own individual goals, there can be no harmony. There had to be a single unifying purpose in order for the harmony and unity that we OBSERVE to have happened. -Dhw: That is the Darwinian concept of competition, which overlooks the Margulis one of cooperation. [...] As I see it, the universe, life and evolution are an ongoing mixture of chaos and organization, of harmony and discord, of creation and destruction. [...] humans and their fellow animals work together in communities, or fight and kill one another [...]; cells join together in a symbiotic relationship, or they reject one another to cause disease. "When everyone works towards their own individual goals, there can be no harmony" presupposes that individual goals can't coincide with harmony. Supposing Jack has cash and John has brains, together they can create a successful business. That, I suggest to you, is the cooperative principle that has enabled multiple intelligences to join together and create harmony. [...] There is no need at all for a single unified purpose, if by that you mean a universal intelligence binding everything together. Individual intelligences can bind themselves together, and create their own order. Indeed, the fact that the world is a mixture of order and disorder could even be taken as evidence against the concept of a single unifying purpose. (Both posts slightly edited for brevity.) -DAVID: You miss the point that I see clearly. Life is meant to be experienced and filled with challenges. Living a life in the Garden of Eden is boring. How do you know if you lived your life well unless you were challenged to overcome obstacles. One should always be introspective, self-analytic and know whether you lived life up to your expectations. Low expectation lives are seen everywhere. I don't have to list the types. High expectation lives are like the folks who visit this website, seeking and striving to find the bigger meanings as to why we were given this extraordinary gift, life. Darwin's use of competition is right on!-No problem with your philosophy. Just a problem understanding what it has to do with my answer to Tony's claim that multiple intelligences will not produce harmony.-Tony:So let me get this right.. not only do living cells have intelligence, but inorganic material has intelligence in the form of energy, and they all work together(yet compete against each other) in such perfect balance that life is able to appear and even thrive. Not only that, those living organisms, imbued with the same energy based intelligence, compete and struggle against each other and yet still manage to keep a near perfect balance so that life can continue for who knows how long... Is that right? Because if your inanimate objects do not have the same energy based intelligence(not to mention the agency to be able to effect change), then none of that makes a bit of sense.-DAVID: I think you are directing the above comment to dhw. I'm not sure which of us Tony is addressing. Tony, my post was a response to your argument that multiple intelligences would not produce harmony, which depended on a single unified purpose. The examples I've given you illustrate how multiple intelligences may COOPERATE to create harmony OR may COMPETE to create discord. They do not cooperate and compete at the same time! If you object to the hypothesis on the grounds that you do not believe inanimate matter can contain any sort of intelligent energy, I shan't argue ... though it seems no more unlikely to me than first-cause energy being aware eternally of itself, or developing awareness of itself. But that was not the subject of the post I was responding to. Perhaps, though, you were simply disagreeing with David's emphasis on Darwinian competition and disregard for Margulisian cooperation.
Evolution of Intelligence
by David Turell , Thursday, March 28, 2013, 16:55 (4256 days ago) @ dhw
> Dhw: Indeed, the fact that the world is a mixture of order and disorder could even be taken as evidence against the concept of a single unifying purpose. > [/i] > > DAVID: You miss the point that I see clearly. Life is meant to be experienced and filled with challenges. .... Darwin's use of competition is right on! > > dhw: No problem with your philosophy. Just a problem understanding what it has to do with my answer to Tony's claim that multiple intelligences will not produce harmony.-My point is that order and disorder from your quote above is part of the overall plan. It creates life's challenges and competition. That is not evidence " against a single unifying purpose".
Evolution of Intelligence
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, March 29, 2013, 08:31 (4255 days ago) @ dhw
My whole argument goes back to your response to my disagreement with chunking original intelligence into separate intelligences. ->DHW: ....life and evolution are an ongoing mixture of chaos and organization, of harmony and discord, of creation and destruction. Stars come and go, just as species have come and gone; humans and their fellow animals work together in communities, or fight and kill one another (humans more so than other animals!); cells join together in a symbiotic relationship, or they reject one another to cause disease. ... Supposing Jack has cash and John has brains, together they can create a successful business. That, I suggest to you, is the cooperative principle that has enabled multiple intelligences to join together and create harmony. Meanwhile, Bob and Bill either ignore each other or fight, in which case multiple intelligences will lead to nothing happening, mutual destruction, or the survival of the fittest ... which is another way in which unity can be established! There is no need at all for a single unified purpose, if by that you mean a universal intelligence binding everything together. Individual intelligences can bind themselves together, and create their own order. Indeed, the fact that the world is a mixture of order and disorder could even be taken as evidence against the concept of a single unifying purpose.- Simply put, you have a few very basic levels of existence, and some very basic rules governing all of them. The rules are a couple of hundred universal constants that MUST be true in order for life to exist, and the laws of physics. These underlying rules have to be in existence prior to anything that has a material, physical existence having any agency. These levels of existence have a very stable heirarchy: Energy >Inorganic matter> Life-Energy can change states very easily, at the speed of thought, and those states can affect change in other energy. -Inorganic matter can change states, but only under certain conditions and only with the application of external force in the form of some kind of energy. -Living matter can change states, but does so through changing the states of its underlying inorganic material(down at the molecular level), so by necessity it requires an external form of energy that it can internalize and convert to something usable to do the work required. -We have never observed life else where, so we can not assume that the third tier of existence played any part in the formation of anything. We have never observed life coming from non-life, so we have no basis for speculating that it could. That takes us down one level to inorganic material. -Inorganic material(elementary particles) are incapable of free agency, i.e. thoughtful activity. They can and do affect change, but only under very strict circumstances such as chemical reactions or radioactive decay, neither of which shows any hint of intention or intelligence. Which regresses us further down to energy. -Energy is capable of carrying information, easily mutable, easily organized, can convert to from energy to physical states, and can induce change on inorganic material and therefore life as well. -So it is reasonable to assume that the original prime mover was energy. Now, as to whether or not it was a single entity acting alone, or multiple entities acting either with or against each other, you claim it is impossible to tell, which I disagree with. -You see competition between species, I see a self-righting system that maintains not only homeostasis, but also encourages personal growth. Not only do the living organisms play a part in this, but also the inorganic, as any changes in the inorganic composition or structure of the Universe at any scale would obliterate life. It is not random competition, but a carefully orchestrated balancing act infinitely more difficult than anything mankind has ever achieved. Orchestrated, concerted effort implies singular purpose. -If ANY element, from the first to the last, energy to life and everything in between, were to not act in harmony with this higher order it would cause wide spread devastation and the ultimate collapse of the system. Look how much devastation humanity causes in the ecosystem, and how far-reaching the consequences of our actions are. Consider the lowly bumble, without which all life on planet earth would likely die. We are not even a drop in the cosmic bucket, yet our actions have dramatic impact. How much more so if a single element, say hydrogen or zinc, were not in complete harmony with the system. Nothing, and I do mean absolutely nothing would function right. -How you manage to know all of this(because I have told you nothing new) and still think for a second that randomness and competition could have come even remotely close to making this work is beyond my imagining. -Yes, there is a unified purpose. It is written there for anyone to see as plainly as the words on this page. The problem is not in the clarity of the message, it is in the implications of the message. If purpose exists in all of creation, it implies a creator. If a creator exists, it implies that he might get sick and tired of our crap and do something about it, and that scares the hell out of people.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Evolution of Intelligence
by David Turell , Friday, March 29, 2013, 14:28 (4255 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony: You see competition between species, I see a self-righting system that maintains not only homeostasis, but also encourages personal growth. Not only do the living organisms play a part in this, but also the inorganic, as any changes in the inorganic composition or structure of the Universe at any scale would obliterate life. It is not random competition, but a carefully orchestrated balancing act infinitely more difficult than anything mankind has ever achieved. Orchestrated, concerted effort implies singular purpose.-Teleology fills the universe. Beautifully stated by this paragraph above > > Tony: If ANY element, from the first to the last, energy to life and everything in between, were to not act in harmony with this higher order it would cause wide spread devastation and the ultimate collapse of the system. Look how much devastation humanity causes in the ecosystem, and how far-reaching the consequences of our actions are. Consider the lowly bumble, without which all life on planet earth would likely die. We are not even a drop in the cosmic bucket, yet our actions have dramatic impact. How much more so if a single element, say hydrogen or zinc, were not in complete harmony with the system. Nothing, and I do mean absolutely nothing would function right. -We live in a designer universe with 120 exactly positioned parameters, with some requiring 10^120 decimal places! Another brilliant statement.-> > Tony: Yes, there is a unified purpose. It is written there for anyone to see as plainly as the words on this page. The problem is not in the clarity of the message, it is in the implications of the message. If purpose exists in all of creation, it implies a creator. If a creator exists, it implies that he might get sick and tired of our crap and do something about it, and that scares the hell out of people.-Here I disagree. Obvious purpose, yes, but the God of the OT is not thatvindictive. The Talmud softens the message. I've commented before about the reward and punishment side of religious thought. To me this is the only weak portion of your brilliant thinking presented here. I should have had you as the co-author of my book!
Evolution of Intelligence
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, March 29, 2013, 15:08 (4255 days ago) @ David Turell
Tony: Yes, there is a unified purpose. It is written there for anyone to see as plainly as the words on this page. The problem is not in the clarity of the message, it is in the implications of the message. If purpose exists in all of creation, it implies a creator. If a creator exists, it implies that he might get sick and tired of our crap and do something about it, and that scares the hell out of people. > > Here I disagree. Obvious purpose, yes, but the God of the OT is not thatvindictive. The Talmud softens the message. I've commented before about the reward and punishment side of religious thought. To me this is the only weak portion of your brilliant thinking presented here. I should have had you as the co-author of my book!-I've never believed that he was! However, people are afraid of what they don't understand, and it is virtually impossible to understand god on more than a superficial level. They are not afraid of any particular version of the almighty, rather they are afraid simply because something with that kind of power exists and is unknowable.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Evolution of Intelligence
TONY: My whole argument goes back to your response to my disagreement with chunking original intelligence into separate intelligences. DHW (referring to David's earlier post): That is the Darwinian concept of competition, which overlooks the Margulis one of cooperation. As I see it, life and evolution are an ongoing mixture of chaos and organization, of harmony and discord, of creation and destruction. Stars come and go, just as species have come and gone; humans and their fellow animals work together in communities, or fight and kill one another (humans more so than other animals!); cells join together in a symbiotic relationship, or they reject one another to cause disease. ... Supposing Jack has cash and John has brains, together they can create a successful business. That, I suggest to you, is the cooperative principle that has enabled multiple intelligences to join together and create harmony. Meanwhile, Bob and Bill either ignore each other or fight, in which case multiple intelligences will lead to nothing happening, mutual destruction, or the survival of the fittest ... which is another way in which unity can be established! There is no need at all for a single unified purpose, if by that you mean a universal intelligence binding everything together. Individual intelligences can bind themselves together, and create their own order. Indeed, the fact that the world is a mixture of order and disorder could even be taken as evidence against the concept of a single unifying purpose. (I have changed your bold to my own.)-I shan't reproduce the early part of your response, as I have no problem with it, and I've agreed from the outset that the original prime mover was energy.-TONY: You see competition between species, I see a self-righting system that maintains not only homeostasis, but also encourages personal growth. Not only do the living organisms play a part in this, but also the inorganic, as any changes in the inorganic composition or structure of the Universe at any scale would obliterate life. It is not random competition, but a carefully orchestrated balancing act infinitely more difficult than anything mankind has ever achieved. Orchestrated, concerted effort implies singular purpose. How you manage to know all of this(because I have told you nothing new) and still think for a second that randomness and competition could have come even remotely close to making this work is beyond my imagining.-It is beyond my own imagining that you could have read the passage you have quoted, and thought for one second that it means randomness and competition have produced the universe and life! It begins with criticism of David's Darwinian post for overlooking the concept of COOPERATION. It goes on to explain in detail how COOPERATION produces harmony, and competition may produce discord, and I challenge you to find any mention of randomness. The whole point of this alternative hypothesis is that I find both chance and a god equally unlikely as "creators" of the universe and life. The quest for a third way is not "willful disbelief", but an attempt to find a scenario that dispenses with two unlikely hypotheses. Unlike David's, your version of God allows for the possibility that the original energy was mindless. How do you think mindless energy might have acquired intelligence, consciousness, information, ideas, purpose? I've pointed out that being aware requires something to be aware of. Why would pure energy become aware of pure energy? We know that matter exists, energy forms matter, and matter always changes. So this is something energy might have become aware of: the changing matter it has formed and in which it is embedded. An analogy: the genome is "aware" of the changes in the matter around it and reacts accordingly (or if it doesn't, the organism perishes). Every chunk of matter may therefore contain its own energy and so gather its own information. You seem to think that individualized intelligence of any kind automatically means destructive egotism, and you "wilfully" ignore the principle of COOPERATION. I showed in my examples that it's even possible for egotism to lead to cooperation between entities if that is in the interest of all parties, as we see so often in Nature. We ALSO see competition, but that is not what creates functioning bodies. Your own body is a huge mass of cooperating cells ... and in my hypothesis that is the result of multiple "intelligences" that have evolved from multiple chunks of matter. And so instead of a single entity for some unknown reason developing a colossally brilliant mind of its own, we have chunks of energy in chunks of matter gradually evolving their own "intelligence" which increases in complexity as they merge with one another. I do not have a problem if you find it unlikely, but you should not claim that it's based on randomness or competition, when the key is "INTELLIGENCE" and COOPERATION. In return, perhaps you will now offer me your own hypothesis as to how a single, universal entity of mindless energy might have acquired its own intelligence.
Evolution of Intelligence
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, March 31, 2013, 05:12 (4253 days ago) @ dhw
> DHW: It is beyond my own imagining that you could have read the passage you have quoted, and thought for one second that it means randomness and competition have produced the universe and life! It begins with criticism of David's Darwinian post for overlooking the concept of COOPERATION. It goes on to explain in detail how COOPERATION produces harmony, and competition may produce discord, and I challenge you to find any mention of randomness. The whole point of this alternative hypothesis is that I find both chance and a god equally unlikely as "creators" of the universe and life. The quest for a third way is not "willful disbelief", but an attempt to find a scenario that dispenses with two unlikely hypotheses.-No one has overlooked cooperation. The problem is that cooperation does not explain the unity of the design, not to mention exponentially complicating the issue of 'first intelligence' by making it happen not once, but numerous times. - > >DHW: Unlike David's, your version of God allows for the possibility that the original energy was mindless. How do you think mindless energy might have acquired intelligence, consciousness, information, ideas, purpose? I've pointed out that being aware requires something to be aware of. Why would pure energy become aware of pure energy? We know that matter exists, energy forms matter, and matter always changes. So this is something energy might have become aware of: the changing matter it has formed and in which it is embedded. An analogy: the genome is "aware" of the changes in the matter around it and reacts accordingly (or if it doesn't, the organism perishes). Every chunk of matter may therefore contain its own energy and so gather its own information. You seem to think that individualized intelligence of any kind automatically means destructive egotism, and you "wilfully" ignore the principle of COOPERATION. I showed in my examples that it's even possible for egotism to lead to cooperation between entities if that is in the interest of all parties, as we see so often in Nature. We ALSO see competition, but that is not what creates functioning bodies. Your own body is a huge mass of cooperating cells ... and in my hypothesis that is the result of multiple "intelligences" that have evolved from multiple chunks of matter. And so instead of a single entity for some unknown reason developing a colossally brilliant mind of its own, we have chunks of energy in chunks of matter gradually evolving their own "intelligence" which increases in complexity as they merge with one another. I do not have a problem if you find it unlikely, but you should not claim that it's based on randomness or competition, when the key is "INTELLIGENCE" and COOPERATION. In return, perhaps you will now offer me your own hypothesis as to how a single, universal entity of mindless energy might have acquired its own intelligence.- The Genome is a chunk of code that reacts the way that it is programmed to react. I have written code myself that can do the same in a much more simplistic manner. I don't ignore the principal of cooperation, it just does not explain the unity of purpose that I see in everything that exists.It also does not explain all of the chicken and egg problems that we see. (See The Flower and the Bumble Bee post) The type of cooperation you describe would be virtually impossible in discreet organisms, for communication reasons if nothing else.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Evolution of Intelligence
Tony mounted a scathing attack on my 'panpsychist' hypothesis as being dependent on randomness and competition. I have (with patient forbearance!) pointed out that on the contrary, the whole hypothesis is based on "intelligence" and cooperation.-TONY: No one has overlooked cooperation.-Then I wonder why you only mentioned randomness and competition. TONY: The problem is that cooperation does not explain the unity of the design, not to mention exponentially complicating the issue of 'first intelligence' by making it happen not once, but numerous times.-Design entails different elements combining into a functioning unit. Cooperation between cells enables organs to function, cooperation between ants enables an ant colony to function, cooperation between wolves enables a pack to function, cooperation between citizens enables a society to function, cooperation between the flower and the bumble bee (a marvellous post, by the way, also illustrating "intelligent energy" at work within the materials) enables both to survive and flourish. Cooperation is the essence of the unity of design. And it happens not once but zillions and zillions of times over, because without it there could be no life. -You wrote: "The Genome is a chunk of code that reacts the way that it is programmed to react." Does this mean your God individually programmes cells, ants, wolves, citizens, flowers and bumble bees to cooperate? Or are you saying that he invented a mechanism which would enable them all to work out their own particular designs? As regards 'first intelligence', I look forward very much to hearing your own hypothesis as to how a single entity of mindless energy might have acquired it.-****-I'm shifting the following discussion from "Trilobite eyes", to avoid duplicating arguments. Perhaps we can confine "Trilobite eyes" to evolution itself.-DHW: What seems unreasonable, and therefore unimaginable to me, is the concept of first-cause energy being a single, super-colossal, eternally and fully self-aware, undesigned mind inexplicably possessing all the information there could possibly be, whereas our puny minds require a designer. -TONY: One mind possessing all information is not a stretch when you think that 'in the beginning' there was so much less information to possess!- Hence my question to you about how your possibly mindless first-cause energy might have acquired its intelligence. "Initially" there could have been no information, apart from its mindless existence, so where did the information come from to give rise to its intelligence, and for its intelligence to acquire?-TONY: Your mind is based on biochemistry with the addition of energy. Because of the physical components and required support system it is greatly more complex and yet more inefficient than a mind made of pure energy. That would be why your mind requires a designer, but the mind made of pure energy would not.-The energy in my mind is acquiring information all the time by its interplay with matter and with other energies. That is why I am suggesting that a single, pure energy would have nothing to learn. Hence my questions.-TONY: The idea of cells having some level of intelligence or awareness is not something that I really disagree with. But trying to extrapolate that idea backwards to the creation of everything is just too much of a stretch because of what goes back that far is at once so mind boggling in its complexity and so elegant at the same time. I see the design of a single creative genius, because anything else would have created discrepancies that would unravel it all. If it were left to random chance or willy nilly individuals choosing to perhaps cooperate and perhaps not, none of us would be having this discussion. There is a near impossibly strong underlying theme to this orchestra. Just because I can not see the composer does not mean I can not read the score and recognize that it has been written by a single hand.-We have no idea how many "discrepancies" occurred before this universe and this Earth settled into their mind-boggling complexity and elegance. I like the analogy of the orchestra, and if I believed in God, I would see him as the ultimate artist/writer/composer, as well as the ultimate scientist. However, you are once again distorting my alternative hypothesis: it is not left to random chance or willy-nilly individuals to cooperate. In my scenario, energy mindlessly forms matter, and instead of energy becoming aware of nothing in particular, it becomes aware of the changing matter it is embedded in. You can if you like say it's lucky that individual "intelligences" were disposed to cooperate in the creation of life (and continue to do so). But then I can say it's lucky that your eventually intelligent God was disposed to creating life instead of spending eternity contemplating his energy. All we know is that life has resulted from cooperation. Whether that was directed by a single "intelligence" outside matter or by individual "intelligences" inside matter is pure speculation.
Evolution of Intelligence
by David Turell , Sunday, March 31, 2013, 18:21 (4253 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: You wrote: "The Genome is a chunk of code that reacts the way that it is programmed to react." Does this mean your God individually programmes cells, ants, wolves, citizens, flowers and bumble bees to cooperate? Or are you saying that he invented a mechanism which would enable them all to work out their own particular designs?- See my entry: Sunday, March 31, 2013, 16:13 @ David Turell. The cooperation at the cellular level is all automatic reactions by molecules, which have no idea of what they are doing. There is no mental state involved. All physico-chemical reactivity. Beautifully planned. Animals have some consciousness and that cooperation is partially instinct and partially mental planning. You cannot take cooperation at a mental level to cells!
Evolution of Intelligence
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, March 31, 2013, 18:48 (4253 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: Then I wonder why you only mentioned randomness and competition.-Because your hypothesis demands all three, but there is no room for randomness and competition at the lowest levels. Elementary particles and sub-atomic particles behave with exacting precision within very specific tolerances. It is this very thing that makes science as we know it even possible. That type of precision does not happen among individuals cooperating without some common purpose, practice, or guidance. Cooperation, perfectly executed, could indeed do great things, hence the reason I left it alone, however, it is not sufficient to explain the observations.-> > TONY: The problem is that cooperation does not explain the unity of the design, not to mention exponentially complicating the issue of 'first intelligence' by making it happen not once, but numerous times. > > Design entails different elements combining into a functioning unit. -Correction: Design entails combining different elements into a functioning unit.-What you described is straight Darwinian evolution. -The engineer doesn't allow stuff to happen without pre-planning. Neither does he throw sticks in a pile and expect a house to appear. Rather, he studies his building materials intently, learning everything there is to know about them, and then uses that knowledge to put them together in an arrangement that suits the purpose he is trying to achieve. Information BEFORE implementation, not information FROM implementation.-> > You wrote: "The Genome is a chunk of code that reacts the way that it is programmed to react." Does this mean your God individually programmes cells, ants, wolves, citizens, flowers and bumble bees to cooperate? Or are you saying that he invented a mechanism which would enable them all to work out their own particular designs? > -There is a concept in object oriented programming called 'Instantiation' in which a template is used to create new and unique objects. Now, the blueprint itself covers every major aspect that any instance spawned from it will have, but it does not limit those instances to ONLY containing the information from the blue print. Variables, can be passed from various elements to help shape the way each instance will appear, but any variable that falls out side of the spec of the blueprint will cause an error and be discarded. So, to answer your question, he did both. He designed the base blueprint for each "kind" of creature, but allowed for variability within certain tolerances.- > As regards 'first intelligence', I look forward very much to hearing your own hypothesis as to how a single entity of mindless energy might have acquired it. > -I would point you to Ken Perlin. Patterns often emerge from random noise and become self-sustaining in terms of organization. Once the pattern has emerged, there is information their to learn from. So there is no need for matter to have been created prior to intelligence or information. YHWH refers to himself as "I am". How apropos that "I think therefore I am". - >DHW: The energy in my mind is acquiring information all the time by its interplay with matter and with other energies. That is why I am suggesting that a single, pure energy would have nothing to learn. Hence my questions.-Introspective.. It could learn about it's own properties. Since waves comprise the foundation of nearly everything, I find that concept particularly fitting. ->DHW: In my scenario, energy mindlessly forms matter, and instead of energy becoming aware of nothing in particular, it becomes aware of the changing matter it is embedded in. You can if you like say it's lucky that individual "intelligences" were disposed to cooperate in the creation of life (and continue to do so). But then I can say it's lucky that your eventually intelligent God was disposed to creating life instead of spending eternity contemplating his energy. All we know is that life has resulted from cooperation. Whether that was directed by a single "intelligence" outside matter or by individual "intelligences" inside matter is pure speculation.- I personally will disagree, and say that we know all life has resulted from unity, which is something that is extremely difficult to attribute to cooperation.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Evolution of Intelligence
Dhw: As regards 'first intelligence', I look forward very much to hearing your own hypothesis as to how a single entity of mindless energy might have acquired it.-TONY: I would point you to Ken Perlin. Patterns often emerge from random noise and become self-sustaining in terms of organization. Once the pattern has emerged, there is information their to learn from. So there is no need for matter to have been created prior to intelligence or information. Patterns emerging from randomness and becoming self-sustaining in terms of organization are precisely what materialists believe in. You could scarcely have found a better image to support their case. As far as our two hypotheses are concerned, you have energy becoming aware of random patterns within itself, and I have energy becoming aware of random patterns in the matter it creates and resides in. Each as likely/unlikely as the other?-Dhw: Design entails different elements combining into a functioning unit. TONY: Correction: Design entails combining different elements into a functioning unit.-I chose my words as carefully as you have chosen yours! I propose intelligent cells combining, and you propose God combining them.-TONY: What you described is straight Darwinian evolution.-Apart from random mutations (which I'd replace with "the intelligent genome") and gradualism (replaced with punctuated equilibrium), Darwinian evolution is fine with me. There is plenty of evidence that in all walks of life, complexity increases as a result of pooled resources and accumulated innovations (see below). TONY: The engineer doesn't allow stuff to happen without pre-planning. Neither does he throw sticks in a pile and expect a house to appear. Rather, he studies his building materials intently, learning everything there is to know about them, and then uses that knowledge to put them together in an arrangement that suits the purpose he is trying to achieve. Information BEFORE implementation, not information FROM implementation.-Which of course presupposes a pre-planned project, as opposed to a process of evolution that progresses without any particular purpose ... but not randomly, as it is guided by intelligence and cooperation. Your own image of the orchestra was a good one: each instrument is the result of intelligent invention, and so step by step the orchestra has evolved from perhaps the first drum to the complex unit we know today. Mozart could not have written even one of his 41 symphonies if earlier intelligences had not invented violins, flutes, trumpets etc. That is how I see evolution ... not pre-planned, but building intelligently to ever greater complexity, as it combines individual inventions. Dhw: You wrote: "The Genome is a chunk of code that reacts the way that it is programmed to react." Does this mean your God individually programmes cells, ants, wolves, citizens, flowers and bumble bees to cooperate? Or are you saying that he invented a mechanism which would enable them all to work out their own particular designs?-TONY: [...] he did both. He designed the base blueprint for each "kind" of creature, but allowed for variability within certain tolerances.-So do you think the flower and the bumblebee were preprogrammed to cooperate, or worked things out together for themselves?-DHW: The energy in my mind is acquiring information all the time by its interplay with matter and with other energies. That is why I am suggesting that a single, pure energy would have nothing to learn. Hence my questions.-TONY: Introspective. It could learn about it's own properties. Since waves comprise the foundation of nearly everything, I find that concept particularly fitting.-Its own properties would already have existed when it was mindless. Perhaps the eternal, mindless wanderings of the waves gradually made it conscious of its own mindless wanderings, or perhaps it had a shock through the far more complex and even dramatic changes in the matter it had mindlessly created. DHW: All we know is that life has resulted from cooperation. Whether that was directed by a single "intelligence" outside matter or by individual "intelligences" inside matter is pure speculation.-TONY: I personally will disagree, and say that we know all life has resulted from unity, which is something that is extremely difficult to attribute to cooperation.-I have no difficulty whatsoever in attributing life to cooperation, since it owes its existence and continuation to the fusing of materials, whether by chance, by God's telekinetic handiwork, or by their own "intelligent" cooperation. My difficulty lies in attributing the cooperation to any one of them. I find our discussions are a great help in articulating all these equally unlikely hypotheses, even though the deeper we go, the more unfathomable the mystery seems to become!
Evolution of Intelligence
by BBella , Monday, April 01, 2013, 21:06 (4252 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw addressing Tony: Your own image of the orchestra was a good one: [...]That is how I see evolution ... not pre-planned, but building intelligently to ever greater complexity, as it combines individual inventions.-Creation might also be considered like an orchestra in another way: Differing elements (instruments) became aware and began to cooperate in an intelligent harmony with each other, that over time, combined in ever greater complexity creating a vibrational scale that eventually became the music of life. -Some could call this whole action God or some might call it evolution, panpsychism, etc. Whether this happening was one harmonious being that created the harmony of all that is, or one harmonious orchestra that created the harmony of all that is, still, all that is is ONE harmonious creation, whatever you choose to call it.
Evolution of Intelligence
BBELLA: Creation might also be considered like an orchestra in another way: Differing elements (instruments) became aware and began to cooperate in an intelligent harmony with each other, that over time, combined in ever greater complexity creating a vibrational scale that eventually became the music of life. Some could call this whole action God or some might call it evolution, panpsychism, etc. Whether this happening was one harmonious being that created the harmony of all that is, or one harmonious orchestra that created the harmony of all that is, still, all that is is ONE harmonious creation, whatever you choose to call it.-Not for the first time, BBella, it seems to me you've got to the essence of our discussions. When different people use the word "God", they often mean totally different things, and are even prepared to ostracize, assassinate, wage war on those who disagree with their version. One form of the 'panpsychist' hypothesis which David objects to so strongly is panexistentialism, which endows all entities with some form of "phenomenal consciousness", though without cognition. This was espoused by Alfred North Whitehead, of "process theology" fame (remember Frank, on this forum?). Whitehead was a theist, who regarded God as the source of the universe, but saw him as constantly growing and changing. Perhaps if Stephen L. Talbott had not used the word logos, but had called the mysterious inner intelligence God, his rather different argument might have been taken more seriously. The question BBella has raised is really what we understand by God. David tries hard not to give his God any human attributes, which is a far cry from Tony's version. For me, a god without human attributes might just as well be a great blob of mindless energy, since his existence will be irrelevant to mine, and mine to him. Philosophically, the question of whether the universe and life were deliberately designed, came about by chance, or evolved step by step through "intelligent energy" is endlessly fascinating (which is why we go on discussing it), but is only of direct relevance to those who believe they are being watched and loved, or watched and judged. Solving the mystery is, I think, only urgent for the latter category. The rest of us don't need to leap to premature conclusions, and meanwhile we should simply enjoy (and help others to enjoy) the overwhelming richness of life while it's still available to us.
Evolution of Intelligence
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 02, 2013, 21:09 (4251 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: The question BBella has raised is really what we understand by God. David tries hard not to give his God any human attributes, which is a far cry from Tony's version. For me, a god without human attributes might just as well be a great blob of mindless energy, since his existence will be irrelevant to mine, and mine to him.-My approach to God's personality is more nuanced than your description. I do not try to describe aspects of personality to God because I do not accept writers in the Bible descriptions of Him. They only anthropomorphize Him. Only if God would supply a list of his characteristics can we ever be sure of His feelings and intentions. Do I think God is interested in us? Yes, very much. Does he love all of us without reservation? I doubt it. Our brains are free to invent bad, evil things to do. With that freedom, He has to be like every parent, willing to forgive if there is change to the good. I recognize these as my suppositions. Adler's postion was 50/50% whether God took an interest in every prayer. He was cautious like I am. But I pray.