Laetoli footprints (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, April 11, 2010, 06:02 (5149 days ago) @ David Turell


> > I agree. IF the universal intelligence ISN'T capable of planning, than most of the measures we attribute to intelligence are gone. > 
> >
> > We have no choice but to conclude that if there is a UI, then it is capable of planning, otherwise--it isn't intelligent.
> 
> But if it is capable of planning, does it want to? -Keeping in context with my original argument--if life is goal-directed, the creator must want to. You might sit down as a potter with a lump of clay, but sooner or later you're going to mold it into something. You have a goal in mind, even if its just to see where the process takes you. -As I suggested, it may simply be an agent for process theology. Set the universe up with guiding rules and laws and watch what happens, evolving according to the dictates of the initial Big Bang. -We know enough about intelligence to be able to say that we know of two kinds of intelligence--via Adler. Perceptive and "human." (Forgot his term for "human".) Only human intelligence is known to possess the capacity for an extremely long-term level of planning. The kind of universe we live in--if WE were to create such a thing, would require an immense engineering feat. For this same thing to be "childishly easy" for a UI, the UI really would need to be like the all-powerful Jehovah, a conscious being with literally unfathomable and unlimited power. And if our universe is so "finely tuned," it's obvious that it's not prone to making mistakes in planning or execution. -The key point is we have no way of knowing the limits of the intelligence or what it wishes to have happen, after the start, or if it even wishes. Maybe there are no concerns at all. Perhaps as religions posit, there is intense interest.-No, but there's definite things I think are reasonable to expect if we are to assert that the universe was designed. What I've detailed are the kinds of things you could expect to see and the nature of the creator based on the kinds of intelligence we are familiar with. None of the things we've uncovered smacks of intense planning and foresight with the exception of the initial big bang. -A bigger question, one stemming from information theory--where would you possibly argue that god interfaces with life when we have no magical bits of information that seem to get interjected from nowhere? It goes back to what I stated some time ago, when I stated that the only reasonable formulation of God based on what we know is that of an extreme deism. -Here's this. We know that the universe moves towards entropy. The only moment of intense unity and control that God has in our world rapidly dissipates over time. (We've already accepted a constrained God, lets take it farther.) To the point where only isolated islands of order continue to exist in the universe. In a vain and desperate attempt to try and keep living, to make its impact on this universe even though its literally being stretched apart into nothing--it manages to manipulate a little bit of life. But because it simply can't--it does so in waves, stutters, and fits. (Vain, because our race is guaranteed to eventually die.) -I know enough about the universe to know that we only have matter and energy. (Be it dark or not.) No formulation of the universe I've seen allows for a pocket of concentrated energy to exist in perpetuity--which is what would really be needed for some kind of a "supreme being."

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"