Intelligence (Origins)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, March 24, 2013, 20:01 (4044 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.