Intelligence (Origins)

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.