That’s your problem here, we are not debating that things can become something else, we are debating that things cannot come from nothing. Do we need to define Nothing to make this clear?
See above, your making a strangely obvious mistake that I cant understand anyone would make more then once. Putting things together to make something bigger or heaver is still starting with something; it does not help your assertion that something can come from nothing and this has never been observed. In addition, you can’t separate a bunch of neurons to begin with, they will die, it’s a community not an individual and if you put them together this does not make intelligence. Medical science knows a lot more then both of us do about this and they cant figure it out either, so please stick to what you know for examples.
Find me one great published mind that makes any case for something from nothing and I will give your idea more consideration, however at this point it is not worth a thought as it has long ago been debunked as an illogical idea by the vast majority of everyone, and for good reason.
No I think we are intelligent because we are aware of ourselves and our affect and place in this world as well as the world its self. We can design with purpose and we can see and understand purpose and we can think of others feelings and choose which feelings to serve.
If you look at observed evidence and eliminate the seemingly impossible you will be left with only a few probabilities and one of them is an intelligent source. I have never seen or heard of even read of anything non-intelligent begetting intelligence other then the highly controversial and Origin of species that many top scientists admit is unsupported with any hard evidence. All I am basing my assertions on is what we humans can observe, so the hard evidence at the moment is in my corner.
On the contrary, it is yours and Carles’s that needs strong supporting evidence to counter the strong supporting evidence of intelligence begets intelligence.
I don’t remember anyone asserting that something came from nothing. If someone did actually say that then let me know. Regardless, it is in fact highly improbable that something can come from nothing. I’m not going to say impossible because who knows, maybe it is possible, but nevertheless I’d say it is quite improbable.
Has the question of who created the creator been asked? Before you retort with condescending notions of me being a third grader, just know that it has been said that things cannot come from nothing, ergo a creator also had to come from somewhere too.
Your definition of intelligence is interesting, and to some poetic extent, rigorous. So rigorous, in fact, that only humans fall within its scope. Could you find an example of any other intelligent life form that fits your definition ?.. Nope, not really. So then, what kind of “observation”, exactly, are you basing your assumptions on ? What experience of intelligence begetting intelligence do you have, since we are the only intelligent beings around and it is our origins that we are debating ?
My point is, again, not that your belief is unfounded, but that it is founded on mere intuition and not logic and/or hard facts.
No rational scientist that studies evolutionary theory will say that anything made anything else in terms of “inventing” them. The only thing that is possible to sort of “override” the natrual effects of evolution is “artificial selection” (as opposed to natural selection). Agriculture is an example of artificial selection. Broccoli was invented by humans. The corn on the cob that we eat today was altered by humans, and could not survive on its own without farmers (its been tested).
The only thing that “causes” anything to change are random genetic mutations that get passed on generation to generation. No form of consciousness (intelligent or otherwise) causes genetic mutations (aside from all the weird shit that geneticists do these days what with cloning and broccoli and corn and what not). As far as the origin of “intelligence” goes… that evolved too. Scientists can say that with pretty much 99.99999999% accuracy.
While it is probably true that un-intelligence can not “beget” intelligence… No one said that it did. So don’t use that as a counterpoint. Get your definitions straight.
You implied it by claiming that intelligence evolved, I say evolved from what and you cant answer so your falling into the illogical trap of something from nothing. You must think a little deeper before you hold something as True, if you cant explain such a huge plot hole then maybe you should keep your mind open instead of just having faith in what someone wrote in a book.
Exactly my point, what’s the most probable, Intelligence from nothing or Intelligence from a source of other intelligence just like we observe in this life. Well, that’s a slam dunk for what is the most probable so we should be able to agree that Intelligence must have come from some single master source unless you can show the logic of multiple sources.
Of course it has been asked. That’s where the well-known axiom of something cannot come from nothing came from and all the greatest minds have agreed that if there is a singularity (as much evidence suggests) then it must have always existed without beginning. This works in QM, String and MV Theory as well. Everything but the first thing was made or has a source, the first thing cannot have a source in other words, simple logic.
The big question in science now is, “where did the building blocks of matter come from that the big Bang caused to coalesce?†Were they always here or were they created by the Big Bang? The latter has been ruled out because something would have to be here first in order for the Big Bang to cause matter to form. The BB is an event, not a source so the building blocks were sourced somewhere else or they were always present. Again you can’t have something from nothing.
The latest theories are dealing with other dimensions; many (me included) believe that the energy force and the building blocks of matter were present in another dimension that created this physical dimension and these building blocks were a form of pure wave or energy themselves not unlike Heat that we know of only because of its effects. Do you realize that there are many forces that we know exist yet they are not made of physical particles like Electromagnetism, Gravity, Heat/Energy and Electricity? None of these have any physical properties, you can’t weigh them, you can’t tell me what there made of and they displace no space in the physical realm. Heat causes a string to vibrate but the math don’t add up to the huge amount of energy that is required to make a particle and the source of the energy that causes the heat is still unknown but believed to be of another dimension by many.
This is more then enough proof for the existence of a non physical dimension that we will never be able to see or measure yet we know it exists because of its effects and these effects are what made this universe and keeps it going. Now all you need to do is add this source of intelligence and you have God. Believe me, I am not the only one to put these pieces together, its more then logical if you think about it, and it answers all the hard questions of “How†without any serious plot holes to tear it down, and once you get to know God that answers all the questions of “Whyâ€.
None of this breaks the laws of cause and effect and we can observe this law in action everyday here on earth, just because we cant see the cause doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist since we can observe the effect. This is the proof for a God, his effect of intelligence proven by the design of the universe and supported by the Purpose we feel and live in every day. You don’t do anything without Purpose, and nothing can be designed without Intelligence.
Observance of the natural laws, their effects point to a cause that is extremely intelligent and sentient similar but far greater then humans are. I’ll call this “cause†God.
Its more then that, it’s the natural order we see in all things, we are intelligent and we give birth to intelligence and other semi intelligent life forms follow suite in same order and complexity. Nothing has been observed to break this natural pattern and no real evidence suggests it ever has. Proof is a funny thing you know, technically there is only what we observe, everything else is a probability or an improbility.
As I explain above, there are no real hard facts to sources that probably lie in another dimension,n but there are effects that point to it and make it the most probable.
Excellent statement. There are plenty of things that all point to there being another dimension. However, just because there is another dimension does not mean that your void of knowledge of it should be filled with the word “god” or “intelligence.” God is not measurable. Effects are. But just because the measurements have the ability to fit your definition of “god” doesn’t mean that “god” is the cause of the measured effects. It is highly improbable that it is “god”. Coincidence reigns supreme over the unknown until you can measure and predict the cause AND measure the effects.
You had me goin for the first half of that, then you lost it. Why is it necesary to stick in this “god” persona? Is it because you want to and you can’t handle a “godless” world? Oh wait, no it’s because you believe him to exist right?
You are using this as one of your justifications for believing it is true?? This basically shows that if a large enough population gets together around a common belief, then the rest of the population should also adopt this belief. Is it peer pressure? Start with one friend pushing drugs on you and you say no man thats not cool. Then all of your friends start doing drugs. Is it still not cool?
Really? Just how did god create you? Did he publish his methods? Or did he just publish the accomplishment? Any great scientific mind attains peer review prior to publication. And since god is the ultimate designer, then that (I guess) makes him a sceintist. I want to see the peer review of his work. I want to see his published methods and experiments so that I can replicate them in a controled environment. Or is the Scientific Method just some crackpot way of answering questions? Seriously come on. Creation Science is what is trying to make its way into science classes. Can Creation Science hold up against the scientific method?
Again you are filling your knowlege-void with God. Why god? Why not Zeus? Why not a talking squirrel from another dimension? Why not Elvis? These hypothetical questions are intended to illustrate that there is just as much chance for a talking squirrel (whom you, nor anyone else, have never witnessed in your entire life), as there is for “god” (whom you, nor anyone else, have never witnessed in your entire life).
Try rewriting your own theory of how the universe started and works but put “the ghost of Jimmy Hoffa” in place of “god.” Kinda silly huh? Well both have equal probability. And I’m gonna bet that you would say “god” is the better answer because you are clinging to this naive imaginary friend type of mentality where comfort leads directly to truth.
And there is a difference between “naivety” and “ignorance”. The truth is that every human is ignorant to the origins of the universe, life, intelligence, etc. Anyone who blindly accepts that their nice welcoming theory simply based on their own comfort with it is naive. I’m talking about the kind of comfort a child has with a teddy bear or security blanket. Not comfort in being able to explain something or grasp it.
Nice that you left this very important statement out and choose to deal with the rest by leaving my main qualifier out.
"Observance of the natural laws, their effects point to a cause that is extremely intelligent and sentient similar but far greater then humans are. I’ll call this “cause†God. "
Next time try and deal with all of what I say in context instead of twisting it by cherry picking to make your point seem more valid. I already qualified many times why this singularity would most probably be intelligent and I only use the word God because I don’t know of any other that fits and that others would understand. Just a few posts back you seemed to agree about the probability of a singularity and that intelligence probably comes from a source of intelligence, so what are you actually arguing now? Are you turned off by the personality of God as it is represented in bibles, because I can understand this and have much trouble with this my self, but that another discussion I think? This one is about probabilities of a singularity and the probable source of intelligence, which we nearly had a consensus on until you just back peddled.
Your lack of complete knowlege should lead to NOT qualifying it with a concrete answer. Try not using the word God at all. Simply state that you do not know.
Kingdaddy, you present a false dichotomy, and it is the core of your theories “plot hole”: “Intelligence from nothing or Intelligence from a source of other intelligence.” These are the only choices you recognize, but they are not the only choices. A third option is intelligeng from non-intelligence. This is not to deny a source, it is to deny the intelligence of the source.
You offer this as evidence:
But, continuing on the topic of points conveniently ignored, I said this:
The point I was making is that seeming design does not support your theory, because it is explained and expected under the opposing theory. In order to support one over the other, you need evidence that would be expected under yours and not under opposing theories.
At this point, out theories seem equal. But I further submit that evidence does exist for intelligence arising from non-intelligence, something expected under my theory but not under yours. I know that you are unaware of this evidence, because you state
But I wonder what you’ve read. Have you read about neural networks or machine learning? Without having sought out the information, your denial of its existence counts for nothing.
I think you will respond by saying that humans (i.e. intelligent beings) were required to create the networks and machines in which the intelligence emerged. I will respond that humans did not create the intelligence, they created the context. They set up a non-intelligent system that will become intelligent on its own. What this shows is that something as unitelligent as an algorithm can produce intelligent behavior. This reduces the requirements on the initial source of the universe to an equation, something it is hardly appropriate to label “god”.
I have already dealt with intelligence form non-intelligence, haven’t you been reading. I’m still waiting for any support or real world examples of this non-intelligence giving birth to intelligence in any form regardless of time frame. When you can do this then you have an argument, until then you have an extreme improbability or fantasy.
The false dichotomy is yours.
Why are they to be expected? How does this not show evidence to a intelligent design of some kind and why would this reality be disqualified because you think its expected… If Chaos is the ruling source then chaos is to be expected and thus no consistency in any of natures designs, the amount of constant flawed mutations would be astronomical, in fact a proper mutation that would actually fit in this complex machine of a world would be next to impossible considering all the variables and no template. Since all the opposing theories don’t have any hard evidence to support them but intelligence form intelligence does, wouldn’t that make this theory the most probable?
But instead of accepting it as a good theory, the defective thinkers discount it as impossible and don’t even consider it, how irrational.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say, give me a real world example if you can.
I’m probable better read and of a fuller understanding of Weak and Strong AI then you evidently and the fact that you bring it up as some support is laughable, obviously you need to do some more research to see just how Weak, “Weak AI†is and how impossible “Strong AI†is as it has never been done, not even close and all available data proves it is never going to happen.
Why should I care what Hume said, did he invent the idea or did he observe it? Hume’s writings or anyone’s writings for that matter are not the source of any knowledge so why would I go to a secondary source filtered with bias instead of just going right to the original source that is not biased?
You people who lean on books for Truth are laughable to me.
Kingdaddy, you haven’t ‘dealt with’ intelligence from non-intelligence. You have simply said “I’ve never seen it happen” and concluded it impossible. But my points in my previous post were that 1) at best, this puts our theories on equal footing, and 2) there are examples of intelligence from non-intelligence.
To clarify:
1)
-The god hypothesis is a proposed explanation of the universe. It holds that ‘god’ (a great intelligence) created the world, thereby endowing it with order, beauty, purpose, etc. So, perceived order, beauty, and purpose do not rule out this theory. Because the theory passes this test, it is supported.
-Some atheist hypotheses hold that the universe is fundamentally mathmatical. They propose that simple regularity (as in fractals, cellular automata, etc, i.e. not “Chaos”) will result in large and complicated structures (like humans) that maintain a certain sort of regularity. So, perceived order, beauty, and purpose do not rule out this theory. Because the theory passes this test, it is supported.
Here, we have two hypotheses, and the facts of how they relate to a given piece of evidence (order/beauty/purpose/etc.). Neither theory is ruled out by the evidence in question, so this particular piece of evidence cannot be used to decide between the two given hypotheses. The evidence is predicted by both hypotheses.
We disagree about what intelligence is. You seem to see it as something that exists independently of any system, some sort of force or fluid that is somehow self replicating. I see intelligence more as a spectrum, so that mammals are intellignet, computers are intelligent, and even neural networks are intelligent. Intelligence is not limited to the highest abstract thought, i.e. something can be intelligent without being a genius. If intelligence is a cumumlative process, then the rudimentary intelligence that developes based on algorithms is a proof of concept that intelligence can arise through non-intelligent processes. If you accept this presentation, I will support the view that intelligence isn’t a thing but rather an emergent property.
