Intelligence (Origins)

by dhw, Sunday, March 24, 2013, 17:44 (4260 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

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".