If you want an example of intelligence from non-intelligence, look at ant and bee hives.
An individual honeybee has a memory of six days. A hive of honeybees has a memory of three months.
So, you have something dumb (the bee) coming together to create a critical mass and get something smarter (the hive).
Well it’s a good thing, then, that elephants don’t travel in hives, or we’d be faced with some impossible maths!
Indeed!
Admittedly, hive animals are the exception, not the rule in terms of situations like this. But they are a clear example of the phenomenon occuring and are sufficiently complex for the term ‘memory’ to have meaning.
If I talk about the ‘memory’ of a slime mould, there is going to have to be a lot of time spent justifying what ‘memory’ means in this situation.
But, we have cases of proteins moving from disordered to order, organisms moving from simple to complex, and we have examples of intelligence increasing from lesser intelligence.
The pattern is fairly clear, even if all the details aren’t present.
How is an intelligent bee that is combining its intelligence with others to be have a longer memory span an example of non intelligence begetting intelligence? The bee was already intelligent to begin with and sharing information to extend this is just that, sharing information, an effect of intelligence.
That was not an example of non intelligence begetting intelligence, in fact that was an example to further my assertion that intelligence only begets intelligence so thank you.
Is there any difference between this, and the phenomenon in humans? That is to say, we as a people still remember Abraham Lincoln, but no one of us could. Or are bees different somehow?
Did ya check the source there, Kingdaddy? Ya might want to. It goes on to talk about neural networks and other stupid systems 
Especially, since in this case it is lesser intelligence going to greater, which goes against your whole system. Unless your God is either the simplest of organisms possible, or you are a big fan of Teilhard.
Edit: are you a Teilhardian? That would clarify some things.
Ucci,
Well, I think that human collective memory is, indeed, a greater thing than an individual’s memory. After all, I certainly know only a small amount compared to what society knows. People are non-redundant in society, where it is unlikely that you could do the work that I can and that I could do the work that you can. In this way, humans with very small individual knowledge can build things that require much more knowledge than any individual has. That is the point of collaborative research and collective effort in general.
With hive animals, the case is just more extreme. That is largely because they are functioning as a single unit in a way that humans don’t.
So you expect an example to support a negative? How can I prove something that isn’t there?
I do not follow this God hypothesis; I did not come up with the God idea first and then try to prove it. I was taught about God first and then began to question it as the bible paints a contradictory picture so I trashed all that I was told and believed and began anew by gaining ideas from observing evidence and I cannot see anything but signs of intelligent design and purpose. Nothing could explain what I observed other then some template that was designed, and this logically leads to a designer. Just because someone else starts with the God idea first does not mean the well is poisoned for proving a God by cause and effect and all the evidence of intelligence and interconnectivity in nature.
First problem I see with this is that mathematical proof is evidence of structure and order and absolute and this blows all atheist ideas out of the water as far as I can tell. There is no such thing as perceived order when there is no other opposing evidence, there is order in everything so to say it is perceived is to delude oneself by ignoring all known evidence. All we have is our observation and if that leads to seeing nothing but order then there is order, it is now fact.
My definition of intelligence.
Intelligence is the ability to understand our part and place in this world and others relation to us and to design and contemplate with purpose. This idea still must have a source as all things but the first thing has been known to have a source.
Yes I did check the source, I’ve read some on this before, strange you interpret it the way you do.
There are no stupid systems, this is a misnomer and incorrect, all systems have a natural template or there would rarely be any consistency and none of this alludes (nor do the authors from what I’ve read) to non-intelligence giving way to intelligence, which would be something from nothing.
So, where is the cutoff, for you, between non-intelligence and intelligence as well as life and non-life?
You can’t have it both ways.
For the sake of the argument is fits and is proper, I didn’t want to complicate things with my specific thinking of what intelligence is because I would have to fight for 20 some odd posts why I think we humans are the only intelligent beings in the known universe. I can accept a cretin amount of intelligence in all things, but draw a difference in human intelligence that is liken to God.
Hope this helps.
I already explained my idea of the division of Intelligence above.
As for Life, well its much easier. Life is God himself, his metaphysical Spirit of life is what makes a physical body alive, when that Spirit leaves the body dies and immediately begins to rot and return to whence it came, the earth.
Kingdaddy, you’re defining yourself into a box. You use intelligent things as evidence for god, but you claim that there is a “cretin amount of intelligence in all things”. You ask for a case where intelligence comes from non-intelligence, but you deny non-intelligence by saying “There are no stupid systems”. You’ve made that impossible, not by presenting a good argument, but by defining the away the possibility of a counter argument.
And how does any of it show god? You’ve accept that “the bee was already intelligent”, so if all you are saying is that human intelligence comes from some lower form of intelligence all the the way down to negligibly intelligent things, I have no problem. But from what you have said, I do not see evidence that intelligence must come from higherintelligence. There seem to be numerous examples that run counter to that, the bee being one that’s already on the table.
Also, I have a question for you: How does human intelligence come from human intelligence? Birth is not a conscious process. The building of a human is not an intellignelty led process, and yet a human will develope into an intelligent being. Often, their intelligence will surpass that of their parents and instructors. Regardless, the learning process is unconscious: the brain rewires itself automatically in response to stimuli, and without conscious guiding. This is the result of process that are purely physical and chemical, non-intelligent if any such thing is allowed. So where is the intelligent guidance that proves a creator?
…Also termites are all doing all details of termite nest. There is no division of labor in the hive. That is till a mass is reached. That mass is propotianate to the food availble. At that point labor is divide instantainoeusly. Some do quard duty, some will start cleaning, some tend thenest. ?how do they know critical mass?
…Also wierder yet is the life of the monarch butterfly. Their migration from S. America to Canada take generations. And this is how. A larvae is hatched and changes to butterfly in S America. That butterfly flies to Mexico, there it lays and egg and dies. That larvae changes and flies to Texas, there it lays and dies. This process is used as they move to Canada and when they move back to S America again. ?how do they know the route?
If God is the singularity and intelligent then it stands to reason that all things living would have a form of intelligence.
No, not really, its probably a product of my poor wording.
I consider a single self-replicating cell a non-intelligent or non-sentient thing. Maybe I should be using the word Sentient to begin with as I delineate intelligence in two distinct categories, one is sentient and all other lower forms of intelligence are non sentient.
Does this help?
No one thing shows evidence of an intelligent source, but all together and the interconnectivity between them do point to an intelligent source, the God word is probably poisoning the well at the moment.
No, quite the opposite, all along I have been saying that the source or maker or template of life must be of the highest intelligence to make a lower intelligence. Higher orders of complexity can make lower orders, but not the other way around, this is why I reject the idea of a self-replicating single cell creature as being the first life form that we all evolved from. This theory is incomplete anyway, it does not even deal with what made the single cell life to begin with, and again something does not come from nothing.
No, the bee was never unintelligent to begin with, no evidence supports a bee that was incapable of doing what is observed now, no proof of an ancient bee that could not operate in a social hive.
The life force in all humans is of this intelligent singularity I call God, his force of life is the essence of this intelligence and when you add choice this makes it possible for every human to accel to a higher understanding then their parents if they choose correctly. God’s natural laws will teach you as much as you allow and the ability is in all of us to begin with, even ancient man without technology or books to lean on could be as intelligent as anyone today.
I think it is a step in the right direction to identify that “the God word is probably poisoning the well.” I propose that we no longer refer to the intelligent source as god, because god has baggage we should avoid.
But I still have issues with the intelligent source. I have a few question, to clarify your position in my mind. Is a bee hive, viewed as a superorganism, more intelligent than any of the individual bees? Or an ant hill more intelligent than an ant?
I’m also curious about human intelligence. At many points you seem to justify god on human intelligence and how intelligence may only come from intelligence, but when I suggest that human intelligence developes through non-intelligent processes, you propose god as the intelligence that creates it. Do you agree that this is circular?
And I’d also like to raise the issue of social prgress: Humans now are more intelligent than they were many years ago: They think more abstractly, organize their thoughts and problem solving better, and achieve more. How does a society produce offspring that are more intelligent than any members of the society? How does society progress?
The Full Spectrum Revealed
The Allmighty Himself.
Angelic being. Living 100% in the presence of God.
Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, “I do not believe, I know.”
Very high probablity but short of 100%. De facto theist. “I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.”
Higher than 50% but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. “I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.”
Exactly 50%. Completly impartial agnostic. “God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.”
Lower than 50% but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. “I don’t know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.”
Very low probablility, but short of zero. De facto atheist. “I cannot know for certain but i think God is very improbable and I live my life on the assuption that he is not there.”
Strong Atheist. “I know there is no God, with the same conviction as C.G. Jung ‘knows’ there is one.”
Total Idiot. I don’t know how to dress myself, I speak jibberish and slobber from the mouth.
The Devil.
I’m a 6 (.666)
Learn to quote, didnt know untill now that you were talking to me.
The answer to your question is NO, it is not circular, it has a constant and beginning.