Is Intelligence A Property Of Reality?
Mods: Not sure where to put this, your guidance welcomed.
===================
Here's an idea I've been chewing on lately. I don't claim it to be original or true, just what's on my mind.
The laws of physics are not a property of any particular thing within reality, but a property of reality itself. These laws are expressed in a seemingly infinite number of varied circumstances. So bouncing a ball might seem to an observer to be an entirely different phenomena than the orbit of a planet, but the same laws govern both.
What if intelligence is like this? What if it's not a property of this or that thing, but a property of reality which is expressed in many different ways in many different circumstances?
Consider evolution. If a scientist had invented evolution they would have won twenty Nobel Prizes, and we would certainly label their invention an exercise of high intelligence.
But as far as we know (religion and alien theory aside) evolution doesn't arise from any particular source. It would seem to fit our definition of an intelligent process, but does not appear to be the creation of any particular entity.
What if the conception "my intelligence" and "your intelligence" is mistaken? What if nobody can own intelligence just as nobody owns the laws of physics?
What if we are not the source of intelligence but rather receivers, much as a television reads and interprets a signal from beyond itself? And of course there are many different types of televisions, and some of them receive the signal more clearly than others.
===================
Here's an idea I've been chewing on lately. I don't claim it to be original or true, just what's on my mind.
The laws of physics are not a property of any particular thing within reality, but a property of reality itself. These laws are expressed in a seemingly infinite number of varied circumstances. So bouncing a ball might seem to an observer to be an entirely different phenomena than the orbit of a planet, but the same laws govern both.
What if intelligence is like this? What if it's not a property of this or that thing, but a property of reality which is expressed in many different ways in many different circumstances?
Consider evolution. If a scientist had invented evolution they would have won twenty Nobel Prizes, and we would certainly label their invention an exercise of high intelligence.
But as far as we know (religion and alien theory aside) evolution doesn't arise from any particular source. It would seem to fit our definition of an intelligent process, but does not appear to be the creation of any particular entity.
What if the conception "my intelligence" and "your intelligence" is mistaken? What if nobody can own intelligence just as nobody owns the laws of physics?
What if we are not the source of intelligence but rather receivers, much as a television reads and interprets a signal from beyond itself? And of course there are many different types of televisions, and some of them receive the signal more clearly than others.
Comments (93)
What if some religious people (not those simply repeating memorized slogans) are intelligent and sensitive enough to have some experience of the global intelligence being proposed here.
But they weren't able to conceive of the intelligence not having a source. And so they filled that hole with a human like character which made sense to them.
If true, then perhaps what these religious people perceive is real, but their attempt to explain what they perceive is not expressed in the language of our modern science based era.
So for example, a person might claim that reality is governed by an all powerful entity called "Physics". That's basically right, except for the entity part. As far as we know at least.
Your point is taken. But to agree with it wouldn't we have to presume that we who judge levels of intelligence are more intelligent than the reality which created "our" intelligence?
You know, evolution weeds out things that don't work. If humans are on average stupid, then evolution would be acting intelligently by weeding us out. So if one stands back far enough, perhaps there is plenty of intelligence? I dunno, thinking on the run here...
...It also seems humans fare poorly in that dept, if we look at the overall situation of our lives and our living conditions.
I think you're on to something but as it's such a huge topic, it warrants caution. When it comes to such foundational issues, a millimeter off at the outset results in kilometer-wide gaps further along.
I've been thinking about this topic a great deal for many years, so there's a point I want to try and get across. This is that whatever else intelligence is (or mind, for that matter), it doesn't exist as an objective reality for us. It is not something we can know - not because it's unreal, but because it is 'that which is seeking to know'. So there is a paradoxical or reflexive quality to the subject, which is like 'the hand trying to grasp itself' or 'the eye trying to see itself'. And realising that reflexive problem should stymie efforts to think it out - you're never going to identify the nature of mind by trying to think it through objectively. It lies prior to the subject-object divide. That's why it's a massive stumbling block for modern, Galilean-style science, which presumes the subject-object divide as an axiom.
Quoting Foghorn
Erwin Schrodinger devoted his later years, after having discovered the equation that made him famous, to just such questions. He studied Vedanta, and also Schopenhuauer and Greek philosophy.
[quote=Erwin Schrodinger, Oneness of Mind; https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger]Consciousness is never experienced in the plural, only in the singular. Not only has none of us ever experienced more than one consciousness, but there is also no trace of circumstantial evidence of this ever happening anywhere in the world. If I say that there cannot be more than one consciousness in the same mind, this seems a blunt tautology — we are quite unable to imagine the contrary.[/quote]
That's a good question! I'm stumped for the moment. What do I mean by "reality is intelligent"??
I don't see why this can't be the case. Possibly difficult to prove but perfectly conceivable.
By the way, how many phenomena are there in bouncing a ball?
A nice approach. This is how one proceeds in a dialogue. Thanks for providing an example for the neurotic and the clueless.
The natural systems that brought about our reality were not, in my opinion, intelligent. Inordinately complex, absolutely. We rate our intelligence as great--which it is in our system of rating intelligence. We don't have any third-party observers to offer comparative ratings, so we may be quite mistaken.
The evolutionary proof of fitness is long term survival and as exemplars of intelligence, we do not have a long record. We have made advances but these were separated by long plateaus. The Stone Age lasted a long time. So did our life as hunter-gatherers--200,000 years, to pick a round number. Settled urban life is very recent (10-12,000 years ago) and the harvest of technology is still coming in.
There are serious flaws in our intelligence. For one big thing, We are not at all skilled at long-term thinking, planning, and management. By "long-term" I mean 100 years out. We are having great difficulty planning for carbon reduction (and a worse climate crisis) at midcentury, only 29 years away. Planning, and managing practice, for 69 years out (2100) is pretty feeble. Thinking, planning, and managing for the 22nd century is hard to even imagine.
In a worst case scenario, the climate crisis of our own making may be the end of our intelligence. I hope not, but success can not be a foregone conclusion.
This just leads to an old argument about Platonic realms and the nature of consciousness. I know there is some sympathy here from one or two people for the notion that someone born with prodigious gifts (music, art, maths) may be bringing in experience from a previous life (not something I believe).
Intelligence is a rather more rubbery notion. There are people who read a lot and have astonishing memories. There are those who are able to synthesise information and see patterns. The mind can do amazing things. So what? What is it about intelligence that suggests an otherworldly dimension? Why the need for a 'signal from beyond itself'. Can you provide examples of intelligence in operation that can't be explained by physicalist answers?
And yet those systems created something that would have been labeled very intelligent if we had created it. You know, the glory of the universe is beyond spectacular, we probably have no words which can express it adequately.
While I'm still struggling with what I mean by the word "intelligence" don't we judge that in part by that which is created?
Fair enough. That's partially a consequence of the forum environment, and social media generally, where you have to keep your posts short. It's the subject that most interests me, but it's hard to articulate, and it gets a lot of pushback.
I don't know where I would suggest you start, though. You're tackling some of the fundamental questions of philosophy. For instance:
Quoting Foghorn
This is basically what Newton discovered, and why the discovery of Newton's laws are considered as the beginning of modern science proper, and also why they're considered universal. (Of course, since Einstein it has become clear that their scope is limited to a range, although we can leave that aside).
Quoting Foghorn
That's another very big statement. The reason for that, is because the scientific approach to evolution deliberately sets aside the idea of a creator - as is well-known, this being a subject of intense controversy in culture and philosophy. (I'm not inclined towards any form of 'creation science' or religious theory of evolution but I'm also dubious of the 'theory of fortuitous origins'.)
Quoting Foghorn
This is the most interesting statement, but let's look at it through the perspective of modern philosophy of mind going back to Descartes. He posited a model in which there was 'res extensia' - extended matter, which was devoid of intellegince - and 'res cogitans' - which is pure mind, if you like, the 'thinking subject', not in itself matter. And most thinking about this subject has been shaped by reactions to this dualistic model in the time since.
I would say that in effect, modern thinking has attempted to dispense with the very idea of 'res cogitans', and the insistence that 'res extensia' - physical matter - is the fundamental stuff of the world. That is the origin of scientific materialism or physicalism, which I think is certainly predominant in secular culture. It's the belief that matter (which nowadays, because of Einstein, is understood to be matter-energy) is the only real substance, and that intelligence is an emergent property or attribute of the physical process of evolution. That picture is what is loosely called 'neo-Darwinian materialism'. ('Neo-Darwinian' because in addition to Darwinian theory of natural selection, it incorporates genetics, which Darwin knew nothing about. 'Materialist' because it believes the process is essentially physical.)
So, in that context, the answer to your question, 'what is intelligence?' would be that it is the evolved capacity of intelligent primates, such as ourselves.
Whereas the tack I took on the question is from outside that perspective, but also not on the intelligent design side of the argument. I took a perspective from Indian philosophy, that of 'non-dualism', as a contrast to Descartes' mind-body dualism. And the advantage of that approach is that it subverts the Cartesian presumption that 'res cogitans' is literally a kind of attribute-bearing substance or subject.
There's an intriguing parallel to your suggestion in some ancient texts:
[quote= The Logos, New Advent Encyc; https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm]God, according to [the Stoics], "did not make the world as an artisan does his work, but it is by wholly penetrating all matter that He is the demiurge of the universe" (Galen, "De qual. incorp." in "Fr. Stoic.", ed. von Arnim, II, 6); He penetrates the world "as honey does the honeycomb" (Tertullian, "Adv. Hermogenem", 44), this God so intimately mingled with the world is fire or ignited air; inasmuch as He is the principle controlling the universe, He is called Logos; and inasmuch as He is the germ from which all else develops, He is called the seminal Logos (logos spermatikos). This Logos is at the same time a force and a law, an irresistible force which bears along the entire world and all creatures to a common end, an inevitable and holy law from which nothing can withdraw itself, and which every reasonable man should follow willingly (Cleanthus, "Hymn to Zeus" in "Fr. Stoic." I, 527-cf. 537). [/quote]
In that context, 'intelligence' can be conceptualised as inherent within the workings of nature.
I'm not proposing an otherworldly dimension, but rather the opposite. The theory is that intelligence is built in to the fabric of observable physical reality, in the same way the laws of physics are.
Perhaps it's helpful to observe that while the laws of physics are very real, they don't exist in the sense of having mass, weight, shape or form, location etc. Intelligence might be like that?
Quoting Tom Storm
As I currently understand this theory, the signal is not from beyond itself. If intelligence is a property of physical reality, there is no beyond from which the signal would come. In this theory, the signal is built in to reality itself. In this theory, various "things" within reality can manifest this built in signal to varying degrees. Mozart can manifest symphonies, whereas I just play the harmonica, poorly.
Quoting Foghorn
They were your words not mine.
Can you provide examples of intelligence in operation that can't be explained by physicalist answers?
One of the topics that got me going in this direction was a month or so I spent learning about CRISPR, a new technology which makes gene editing easier. Here's the relevant bit...
CRISPR is built upon what bacteria have been doing for many millions of years. Bacteria defend themselves from viruses by grabbing a bit of DNA from the virus and storing it in the bacteria's own DNA. This allows the bacteria to recognize the virus the next time they see it, and provide the appropriate defensive reaction.
Bacteria are selecting particular information, storing it, and then referencing it as needed.
Bacteria.
Jennifer Doudna got the Nobel prize for understanding and leveraging what bacteria have been doing since the dawn of time.
So, the idea that intelligence is the evolved capacity of primates seems a pretty inadequate theory at the moment.
I'm outta gas for today, the dinner table calling my name. Thanks much for all the responses! Looking forward to more tomorrow.
Check out the above post about bacteria if you want.
The inquirer can ask the questions to themselves, or in a dialogue, is what i meant. I wasn't asking you to answer them. Good thread.
A distinction is routinely made between intelligence guided by intention and planning, such as h. sapiens exhibits, and the instinctive reactions which animate other forms of sentient life. Instinctive reactions can give rise to many amazingly complex behaviours on both the cellular and species level. But I don't think the modern evolutionary synthesis regards this as being the result of intelligence. Modern evolutionary thought has been in the past hostile to any sense of goal-directedness in nature. That is starting to change, through the appreciation of epigenetics and the emergence of the extended evolutionary synthesis, but still, I think the mainstream is that 'intentional intelligence' is still the sole province of humans and the higher animals.
On a side note since you have mentioned bacteria you might take a look, and contemplate, if you wish, on how unicellulars evolved by a single principle, and that is the pain-pleasure principle. The implications of this at the level of humans is quite significant, and will give an insight into how trapped the human mind is within the network of pain and pleasure.
Quoting Foghorn
And that would mean that the universe is intelligent and consists of various forms and degrees of intelligence. As proposed by Platonism and other monistic systems.
Quoting Foghorn
Perhaps instead of intelligence, maybe self awareness or consciousness might be a better choice of words?
In either case, what you're saying sounds a little like this: https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/video/consciousness-as-a-fundamental-building-block-of-the-universe
I think of this as sort of a recursion thing. Our bodies are composed of atoms, yet we can look at our bodies and say "Hey, I'm made of atoms". How is this possible?
I do not have any answers - and I'm not even sure that this is the right question.
It's a deep mystery which science is just starting to grapple with. If mankind can succeed in not self destructing, perhaps in a 100 or a 1000 or 100000 years we may have some better understanding of this.
That's the miracle in it! Following the Big Bang, the particles formed into atoms and molecules, made stars that later on exploded, creating still more and heavier elements in a cloud of dust that congealed into this celestial ball, billions of years after which we came along. I don't know why or how the universe pulled off the trick of turning mud into vigorous single-celled life, or single celled life into primates with a penchant for proclaiming their preeminence, but it did.
We are not under-rating the universe if we say it isn't intelligent. The universe is sublime [inspiring awe because of beauty, grandeur, and transcendent immensity]. The universe encompasses everything, from the farthest flung galaxy right down to our posts on The Philosophy Forum.
It doesn't require our assistance.
Let alone superheated gaseous plasma into life-bearing mud. Maybe it wanted to have the experience of getting up late one morning and ambling down to the store to buy a lemon gelato.
I think this is the most reasonable conclusion.
I hear you, and thanks for the thumbs up. Glad you're enjoying the thread.
Yes, agreed. I'm struggling with words like "intelligence" in this thread. And please note, I stated in the OP that these ideas are just what's on my mind. I'm making no claim to "The Truth".
I don't see any problem with the word "intelligence" as long as it is adequately defined.
It may be said that intelligence is the power to grasp or be aware of information. However, as every act of awareness implies self-awareness and self-awareness is the background on which all conscious experience takes place, it wouldn't be wrong to speak of self-aware intelligence.
This would classify reality into entities that are increasingly aware of themselves and of their essential identity with one another toward the top, and entities that are increasingly non-self-aware and differentiated toward the bottom. More or less as envisaged by Plotinus and others.
Ok, I hear you in regards to semantics and definitions etc, and agree that what you've expressed is the most common view.
I'm just asking members to reflect on the fact that the behavior seen in bacteria (selecting, storing, and retrieving information for a specific purpose) is labeled intelligence when higher life forms do it. So maybe the distinction you reference merits closer inspection?
I would of course agree that bacteria don't manifest intelligence in the same way that humans do. But this is already accounted for in the theory I'm presenting. Just as there is one law of physics which manifests in an infinite variety of ways in particular situations, the same may be true for intelligence. If we compare life forms to televisions, then some TV sets can display in HD color, while other TV sets can display only in low res black and white. But both sets display the same signal in some manner.
Trees are another example. I recently heard a tree expert on NPR explain how trees can share information about threats, share resources, fight wars, identify their own offspring etc. Trees don't have brains or nervous systems, there is no "me" at the heart of the tree making decisions. But the cooperative and information management behavior observed in trees is labeled intelligence when we do it.
We could respond to such observations by saying such behavior is simply the result of random mutations, natural selection, evolution etc. I'm good with that. I'm just pointing out that this
seemingly purely mechanical process with no mind or intention is producing what we typically
label intelligent behavior across the tree of life from bacteria to humans.
Well, the word "intelligence" typically refers to a property of a separate unique entity. So we use language such as "I am intelligent" and "you are intelligent".
If we are instead receivers of intelligence, and not the owners/creators of intelligence....
If intelligence is like the laws of physics, not a property of this or that thing, but a property of reality itself...
Then we are starting to bend the word "intelligence" way beyond it's normal meaning. We may need another word to describe a um, uh, universal intelligence?
Religious people often solve this problem with the God concept. But this is typically just a replication of the "intelligence as property of a thing" idea, with God being simply a bigger thing, the biggest thing.
What interests me here is considering intelligence as we consider the laws of physics, that is, not the property of any particular thing within reality, but a property of reality itself.
Maybe it's not a miracle? Maybe life is following the "laws of intelligence" in the very same way it is following the "laws of physics"? Or maybe the "laws of intelligence" are just an aspect of the "laws of physics" which we don't yet understand?
I can only see two options, either (1) we use a redefined term to include the meaning we want it to have, or (2) we coin a new word.
By the way, you're saying that "nobody can own intelligence just as nobody owns the laws of physics". However, the laws of physics may not be "owned" by the objects to which they apply in the normal sense of the word, but the objects may still share in those laws by virtue of being part of the physical world. And the same may apply to intelligence. In other words, a form of shared or collective ownership. And that still leaves open the possibility of something or somebody owning or controlling the totality of intelligence, or intelligence owning or controlling itself. And this would presuppose some kind of self-awareness.
Quoting The Logos, New Advent Encyc
Yes, does this idea perhaps transcend the subject/object paradigm you've referred to?
If God penetrates all matter, wouldn't that equal God being another word for matter? God/matter, a single unified phenomena, divided in to conceptual parts by the human mind. Or, for the atheist, we could rebrand this idea as intelligence/matter.
To my very limited understanding, what made Einstein famous was the insight that space and time are not two different phenomena in the real world, but a single phenomena which was conceptually divided in our minds. Thus the term space/time. This phrase seems a kind of bridge between how we experience space and time, and how they really are.
Catholics have a similar concept when they claim that God is everywhere at every scale in all times and places. I've frequently asked them to consider that this might mean that God and reality are two different words for the same thing. However, in my experience they've always wished to maintain a boundary between God and reality. Within their ideology such a division seems essential, because if God is everything everywhere, then there is no place one can be but with God, and thus the idea of earning salvation tends to fall apart.
Except maybe the "earn salvation" idea doesn't fall apart. Maybe earning salvation is not reuniting with God, but instead over coming the illusion that we ever were separate. That's what I hear in the "die to be reborn" advice from Jesus.
Yes, agreed. I'm not allergic to the God concept, or however you might describe the "something or somebody".
Does this help? Are we exploring the concept of division? Do "things" exist in the real world? Or is reality a single thing, which is divided conceptually? I seem to be exploring the "reality as single thing" notion.
I can vote for this. We are exploring "a" question, not necessarily a right question.
Why can bacteria perform actions which if we did them we'd say they are intelligent?
Bacteria can select specific information (virus DNA), store that information, and retrieve that information as needed, in service to a goal of self preservation.
That's pretty intelligent, especially when we consider that half the humans we know can't successfully perform the same operation. :-)
Bacteria For President!!!!
In that case, it wouldn't be bad to start with a definition of "reality" or "reality as single thing" and then look into how it relates to intelligence. Presumably, we can only talk about reality if there is an intelligence there that enables us to be aware of it and analyze it rationally.
It probably wouldn't be a good idea to use terms like "God" or else we run the risk of the thread being taken over by the materialists/anti-theists and not getting very far.
Well yes, but now we arrive at a problem which Wayfarer may wish to comment on. It's rather difficult to see the unity of all things (should that exist) using a human mind machine which operates by a process of division. Thus, some investigators set aside the analyze rationally method, or downplay it's importance at least.
Quoting Apollodorus
Yea, I agree, that could happen. I'm not interested in recycling that debate, I'm just reporting I'm not allergic to the God idea. That said, I'm not allergic to setting such language aside either.
Well that depends. There's definitely an aspect of physical law that depends on the geometry of the universe (e.g. the inverse square laws) rather than the contents, but as modern physics has evolved, more and more of physical law is interpreted as objects (quantum fields, properties of objects like charge).
Quoting Foghorn
Evolution itself emerges from those physical laws plus the presence of certain objects that obey those laws. It's a lot dumber than people give it credit for: random mutation adding noise to the gene pool (considered an inevitable but negative feature of any other system), the heritability of genes, and lots and lots of death.
Not that difficult. The way I see it, the same human mind machine operating by a process of division also has the capacity to see unity in diversity. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to grasp concepts like universals. It was for this very reason that Plato and his followers introduced the theory of forms and other concepts in order to assist the mind in seeing the unity underlying all reality. Try to imagine or think in your head that everything you see is made of luminous energy or intelligent light. After a while, you'll begin to understand. The flip side to that is that it won't help much in analyzing things scientifically or in a way acceptable to science.
Do we see unity itself via rationality? Or do we see thoughts about unity?
I've been proposing intelligence is embedded in reality. This idea is a product of thought, and so I'm still conceiving of intelligence as one thing, and reality as another. Has my mind conceptually divided in to two that which is actually really one?
The mind sees both unity and diversity, subject and object, in order to rationally analyze reality, in the same way it sees changelessness in order to see change, etc.
But unity itself is part of the subject which is one, whereas diversity pertains to the objective world.
In everyday life we tend to emphasize diversity and pay less attention to unity. But when we focus more on unity, our perspective and experience change accordingly. Ultimately, subject and object must be one or consisting of the same stuff, which is intelligence.
You don't say :-)
"half" is pretty generous, more like all
Ha @ re-branding
It seems like a corollary principal could be reached outside the physical sciences. That is, we know meaning exists, because we experience consciousness and understand meaning. If you take the argument that meaning is contingent on sublation, that is, you can only define a thing by what it is not, then you are forced to posit that any complete whole of being must, to have ever created understanding, have posited something outside itself as a means to understand itself. This is where you get Boehme's cosmology, or Hegel's contradiction of Being and Nothing, which forms Becoming.
In either case, the historical/physical, or the purely logical, idealist model, you end up with intellect being essential, pretty much definitionally. It's meaningless to talk about anything existing without the ability of something to posit the negative of that thing.
I think that this keeps coming up in the material sciences is evidence of the fact that the German idealists were on to something, although their impenetrably obscure systems makes it hard to say just what. Indeed, it keeps popping up in my news feeds that there are new papers on this idea, but I haven't even read the popsci interpretations yet: https://news.yahoo.com/scientists-believe-universe-conscious-134500165.html
:up:
Quoting Foghorn
:angry:
Quoting Foghorn
It is common to all Christian denominations that God is immanent and yet transcendent. Basically 'immanent' means present, but transcendent means beyond, so it's a paradox, but I think there are parallels in practically all the religions.
But you can't equate God with 'things' or 'mere stuff' because then you've simply lost sight of what is being contemplated. That of course leads into many deep questions of philosophical theology but then, we are discussing metaphysics.
Yes, I hear you, and that seems an accurate description of how Catholics think about this. You would know better than I how other religions regard it.
Quoting Wayfarer
Well, ok, but that's not what I'm contemplating. What I'm contemplating is a single unified reality, with conceptual boundaries imposed upon it by human minds which operate by a process of division.
As example, we have words "mind" and "body" which conceptually divide the human form in to parts. But, as I'm sure you know, mind and body are so intimately connected that functionally, in the real world, it's more accurate to consider them as one thing.
So, maybe reality itself is not divided in to mind and body but is, like the human form, more accurately described as a single thing.
If what we call intelligence is an integral property of reality just as the laws of physics are, that might explain why creatures as primitive as bacteria can perform the kinds of complex operations described above.
It's a theory, that's all.
Quoting Foghorn
That is the kind of approach that characterises non-dualism. It's much more associated with Eastern philosophy than with Western. That sense of non-division or undivideness is the aim of those philosophies.
Quoting Foghorn
Again, can't help but agree. I'm just casting around for ways to situate it in terms of philosophy and science, because I'm pretty sure, most contemporary scientists and philosophers wouldn't.
Ok, no problem. I'm not objecting, and appreciate your knowledge of the broader context, which I largely lack.
Quoting Wayfarer
I'm vaguely aware of this much. Sometimes people ask me if I'm a Buddhist, and I have to reply that I have no idea. :-)
As you may have already suggested yourself, philosophy may not be the best method for appreciating whatever unity exists, given that philosophy is made of thought, and thought operates by a process of division.
That is philosophical analysis.
Yes, and it's possible to use philosophical analysis to identify cases where philosophy may not be the most effective tool for the job.
I'm quite familiar with this perspective, and the experience too, and do agree with you. This is why I was questioning above whether philosophy is an adequate tool for exploring whatever unity may exist in the real world.
Philosophy doesn't actually focus on the real world, but rather on our thoughts about the real world.
From what you've said I can see I don't need to explain this to you.
Your question describes universal "Intelligence" as-if it is something "out there in Nature", like Energy, except that, instead of converting Cold to Hot, it converts Dumb to Smart. Perhaps, everything in the world is being irradiated with that ambient Smart Power, but only certain things are receptive to it's wisdom. Similarly, some people have postulated that "Consciousness" is being beamed at us like radio signals, but only a select few (humans, apes, whales) are tuned-in to the proper frequency to get a clear signal. But where (out there in the ether) is the Intelligence radio station? And who is the station manager?
Radio Brain :
"the brain may be a receiver and transmitter of consciousness."
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-06-spiritual-science-perspective-consciousness.html
I have considered a similar idea, but I use the more generic term "Information" instead of anthropocentric "Intelligence". Information is indeed related to Intelligence & Wisdom, but as a transmitter and transformer, it works more like Energy as an agent of Change. Scientists have found that Information is an essential Quality of everything in the world. I won't go into the details of that notion here. Yet, it's the basis of my personal worldview that I call Enformationism. Like Energy, Information is a "property of reality", but it has Mental effects in addition to its causal effects on Matter. Its expression as Intelligence is a matter of degree : some have it and some don't. :smile:
Is information the only thing that exists? :
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431191-500-inside-knowledge-is-information-the-only-thing-that-exists/
Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/just-say-no-to-human-monkey-chimeras
With respect to the question you ask in the OP - check out this review. It's rather a long review of two current books on philosophy of biology. A point that I noticed was this:
So, there you have an argument that intelligence is intrinsic to life itself, if not to 'reality' in the more abstract sense.
You're mention of energy seems very useful, thank you for that. Here's why...
I've been suggesting that what we call intelligence, and matter, may be not two things but one. That is, two different words for the same thing. United in reality, divided conceptually.
Isn't this the case with energy and matter? Isn't matter just one of the expressions of energy?
Not sure about any of this, but I'd never thought of the relevance of energy/matter to this discussion, so thanks.
Space/time may be another example. We have two different words "space" and "time" because we've long assumed these to be two different phenomena, thus we created two different nouns. If I understand Einstein at all, he seems to be saying that space and time are really the same thing, and the difference we perceive between them is an illusion created by our minds. Well, that last part might be me and not Einstein, not sure.
Thanks, I had vague knowledge of that, but it's good to see an article which spells it out in more detail. My prediction is that at some point there will be a tidal wave of public opposition to gene editing. It's too abstract for the common guy and gal to engage now, but as example, if/when somebody produces some bizarre creature which we can observe in a more concrete manner, it's going to trigger something primal in the human psyche. Looks like science is rushing in that direction as fast as it can.
Yes, well, the bacteria example seems to illustrate this claim pretty well. I still find that fascinating.
The question of whether what we call intelligence also inhabits non-life reality is an interesting one. Your post might help us divide this theory in to life vs. non-life.
If intelligence is not something different than matter, the way space is not different than time, then we could propose all of reality is made of this phenomena, whatever one wants to call it.
I think there needs to be. Actually, it’s amazing that there isn’t more of an outcry about it. I suppose that it’s because it’s just one item in an avalanche of technological news. It’s kind of gone under the radar.
I think if you read up on it, you’re in a good position to be a ‘citizen activist’ about this subject, and it sure needs attention.
Have a close look at that magazine I linked to, The New Atlantis. It’s specifically about technology and society. You will find a lot of material there relevant to your interest in this subject.
Quoting Foghorn
Right! But understand how this would be treated if you proposed it in, say, postgrad biology. You would be asked for evidence to support it. Many tough questions - how would you detect this? What makes you say that it’s there? If it is there, how come other scientists aren’t talking about it, or which scientists are?
Also, you’re not talking ‘phenomena’. Phenomena are ‘what appears’. If ‘intelligence’ is something ‘behind’ everything, something that causes, then by definition, it’s not phenomena - it’s what causes phenomena. That’s a distinction that needs to be made.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to shoot you down - but understand the territory, which is a large territory.
Einstein’s famous equation, e=mc[sup]2[/sup], establishes the equivalence of matter and energy, but where does ‘intelligence’ fit into that? In current theory, intelligence is a product of living beings, and living beings are a product of the interactions of matter. Do you think that is true?
It may not, I'm obviously speculating in every direction, and unable to prove anything.
What interests me is the way our minds impose a pattern of division on reality. So for example, we saw a division between energy and matter (thus the two nouns) that doesn't really exist. We saw a division between space and time, which apparently also doesn't exist. Mind and body may be another example. There may be countless examples. And so, one wonders if an apparent division between intelligence and life, or intelligence and matter, is yet another form of illusion.
Quoting Wayfarer
That's what I'm questioning. Are living things the television station, the source of intelligence? Or the television set, the receiver of intelligence?
The typical conception is that natural selection rewarded intelligence and so primitive life evolved in to advanced life, as defined by the phenomena of intelligence. But then we have bacteria, which are performing complex data management operations which seem reasonably labeled intelligent. As we've discussed, Jennifer Doudna learned how to make CRISPR from bacteria. Why didn't they get the Nobel instead of her?? :-)
Agreed. My theory is that gene editing still too abstract a topic. When there's a donkey in the zoo with four heads, when we can see it instead of just think about it, the cultural ground may shift. Or maybe not. The "science clergy" as I've taken to calling them, have a pretty firm grip on the throne of authority. And, that's because they can deliver a great many goodies, as they will using gene editing too.
Quoting Wayfarer
Well, to be honest, I've largely lost faith in the audience, and discuss these things mostly because I'm addicted to thinking and typing. To put it another way, the knowledge explosion is a force of nature, a phenomena perhaps beyond the control of human beings, like a hurricane if you will, or a comet. It's going to do whatever it's going to do, and we're just along for the ride. And, at age 69, I'm at that point where I have one foot out the door, so to speak. This is my current list of excuses, to be updated as necessary. :-)
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes, I hear you, I entirely agree this is speculation which I'm unable to prove. I'm attempting to make a logical case, based on previous misunderstandings regarding where we saw two things that were really one. I can't prove the point, but maybe I can demonstrate that further speculation is warranted?
Quoting Wayfarer
To engage the point, if matter=intelligence, and intelligence=matter, then the phenomena I'm describing does appear, in the form of matter, or perhaps just life.
I'm not proposing intelligence as something behind everything, such as is often done with the God concept.
1) I'm proposing intelligence _IS_ everything.
2) And, that the divisions we perceive between "things" is an illusion generated by the way our minds work.
Thanks for your ongoing participation. It's obvious you've been exploring topics like this for a long time, so it's fun to hear from you.
Because they couldn’t have turned up at the award ceremony? (Or, if they did they just would have made everyone sick.)
Oh, what a bad little biologist you're turning out to be. :-) Bacteria coat every surface everywhere, except in very carefully sanitized situations. Betty and Bob Bacteria are crawling all over the podium at the Nobel ceremony, patiently waiting for the Committee to recognize them as the original inventors of CRISPR. :-)
Yes, I didn't want to alarm everyone, but that's the next step if they aren't given the @#$^%^ award, and they mean, right now!!!
Sure - but do a lot of reading on it. It’s a genuinely interesting question and there’s a ton of material. I don’t know where you’re up to in your life and career but there is something to be studied here. But don’t waste time - pursue it with serious intent. Which means, seeking out counter-factuals, things and people which will oppose your ideas. The only way to make them stand up to criticism is to have them criticised and to take criticism seriously. If you’re up for it.
That's a meaty question. :D It's also not quite innocent, though.
Wouldn't a person whose against physicalism already consider the uncontroversial examples of intelligence as needing something other than a physicalist answer?
And, similarly so, a physicalist would see examples of intelligence as bolstering their viewpoint -- that clearly these examples are explained by physicalism, or compatible with physicalism.
But you're asking for that example which clearly cannot be explained by physicalism -- something that's necessarily not-physical. And in order to even hope to answer your question with any kind of possibly satisfactory answer I'd have to know what might satisfy you that something is not-physical?
Or, the other way around, what is your physicalism?
What are some of the phenomena you would propose as being governed by this property?
So far I gather you mean primates like ourselves, and bacteria.
But couldn't the activities you specify -- the analysis, recording, reacting to information through genes, etc. -- also just be the activities of life?
Life eats, shits, reproduces, dies. There are different functions a particular organism must perform or fulfill in order to be counted as life.
And it's not like, say, the moon's smile is caused by intelligence.
Well, here am I, on a philosophy forum, where "here's what's wrong with that" is the cultural norm. :-)
As we've discussed, I did precisely what you've suggested on Doudna's (leading gene editing expert) Facebook page. I specifically and politely suggested to them that they use my challenges as practice for refining their own case, and vice versa. They politely declined, and then erased all my posts. That is, they are scientists, not philosophers. This is completely normal routine human behavior, and scientists are human too. I've been booted, banned and ignored on more science sites than I can count.
Philosophy forums are a rare phenomena. The vast majority of human communities are tribes, especially online. Effective challenges to the group consensus of any tribe have to be somehow removed because they threaten the glue that holds the tribe together.
Experts are the least likely to accept any new insight, because they have a huge investment in the status quo. They particularly can not afford to be observed publicly learning anything from non-experts. If it could be convincingly shown that gene editing is an existential threat, what is Doudna supposed to do? Turn in her Phd, give back the Nobel, and become a carpenter?
Setting all that aside, the larger point is that the knowledge explosion is perhaps best seen as a force of nature. We aren't driving it, we're riding it. This claim seems relevant to this thread because if intelligence is embedded in the fabric of reality as is being proposed here, arguing with it's evolution might be equivalent to trying to argue with the laws physics.
It's a sincere question. When a claim is made, like most, I prefer to understand what the evidence for that claim might be. I have no theory of physicalism but it seems to me there is no good evidence as yet of an alternative. I can't provide an example of any non-physical entities because I am not making the claim that such things exists. Hence my question.
Yes, that's what life does. The question being asked here is, what is the source of these functions? Particularly for example, in the case of primitive life forms such as bacteria.
We could answer evolution is the source, which is agreeable here. But that just kicks the can down the road. Now we have to ask, what is the source of evolution's intelligent-like behavior?
Evolution may be a good example to focus on, because evolution isn't a creature or a life form. Evolution, like the laws of physics, is very real, and yet doesn't exist in the sense of having weight, mass, location etc. Evolution is not a "thing". And yet, evolution performs a function that we would label as highly intelligent, if we were the authors of evolution.
One way to explain this could be to propose that intelligence, like the laws of physics, is embedded in the nature of reality.
The evidence I'm attempting to offer is that we have often seen division where it doesn't actually exist. Space and time, two words, one thing. Energy and matter, two words, one thing. Mind and body, two words, one thing. This proves nothing, it just raises interesting questions like...
Life and death. Two words. One thing?
Intelligence and matter. Two words. One thing?
Key to such an analysis (imho) is the nature of how our minds work.
My claim would be that the mind works by dividing a single unified reality in to conceptual parts (ie. nouns). This is the source of our genius, as we can now re-arrange the conceptual parts in our minds to form new visions of reality which don't yet exist in the real world. That is, we can be creative.
The price tag for this awesome power is that this process generates distortion by imposing a pattern of division on reality. We tend to mistake the pattern for the reality. And, this process of division tends to make us somewhat insane, because this division process creates the human experience of being divided from reality.
I don't even know what would count as evidence for either physicalism or whatever-else. When it comes to claims like "Everything is. . . ", well... if such a sentence is true, then literally everything that exists counts as evidence for it.
They aren't really the sorts of claims that a strict evidential calculus can decide answers to, since literally everything counts in its favor -- another way to put this that people seem to like is to say they aren't falsifiable, while keeping in mind that this term is interpretable in multiple ways and I'm just meaning it more colloquially here.
I don't know if there's an example of intelligence that must exclude physicalism. But if you don't have a theory of physicalism -- which I don't exactly either -- then wouldn't it be difficult for anyone to come up with an example which counts as either physical or not?
Just something to think about in trading some examples... I'll try to give some to see what rattles around.
Sticking with the idea presented here as a basis for understanding intelligence:
Quoting Foghorn
So bacteria and people do some of the same things. Bacteria and people defend themselves from viruses, bacteria and people recognize viruses, and bacteria and people react to their environments. There is an entity and an environment, and said entity prioritizes itself in some manner over the environment, and intelligence is this capacity to store information and change future behavior in similar circumstances based upon said information.
Minimally speaking we have perception and memory as a bare-minimum for counting things intelligent. The bacteria, upon re-encountering a threat it has met before, will recognize it and defend itself, and this is all pretty well understood in physical terms.
And humans, too, have perception and memory -- among other things, but perhaps these are not counted as "intelligence" per se but are categorized otherwise.
But where are the anti-bodies in the brain that count as our memory of. . .. well, our memory, too, requires emotion, so I think I can claim that emotion must be part of intelligence as we understand it here too -- and that bit is very different from the bacteria. The bacteria's memory is a protein created which will bind to a particular sequence that identifies a threat with a high degree of accuracy. But where are our memories? We presume they are in our brains, somehow created through the bundled up interaction of neurons -- but we certainly don't know how all this works yet, scientifically. SO, at present at least, we're still working on a physicalist understanding of the mind.
At least as far as I understand things. I am by no means an expert, but just a random guy on the internet.
This is a good question. I agree that I'm am likely bending the word "intelligence" beyond it's agreed upon meaning. I could say, "Luke, trust The Force!", but that's already taken. :-)
We are entering a quicksand swamp here, because nouns are specifically designed to create a conceptual division, and I'm attempting to refer to a single unified reality. I believe this problem has been discussed for thousands of years in the field of religion, and Wayfarer would likely be our best source on that history.
Good description, thanks. Yes, the usual understanding of intelligence is entity based.
Quoting Moliere
Yes, and the interesting bit here, imho, is that we are discussing bacteria. They have no brain, no nervous system. And yet, they learned how to do CRISPR type operations maybe a billion years before a Nobel Prize winning scientist. And so we might claim that intelligence existed long before the evolution of higher life forms.
Divine artists and material canvases!
Yes. According the the Big Bang theory, All Energy, Matter, Intelligence, and Consciousness in the universe came from the same source, called "The Singularity". But the question arises, what form did those different expressions take when they were united in the "seed" of our universe. My guess is that the Singularity contained generic Information (program), analogous to the DNA in a seed or egg -- or like the "Boot Program" of a computer. And since Information is non-physical (e.g. mathematics & logic) everything in our vast current universe could be compressed into a tiny package with no physical dimensions (i.e. occupying no space).
Therefore, in my personal worldview, all Matter & Energy in the world originated as something with the Potential to develop into a variety of physical (Matter) and meta-physical (Mind) forms. Hence, both Energy and Matter are "expressions" of generic Information. And Quantum Theory supports that notion, in that physical Atoms of Matter, are reduced to mathematical Wave Functions on the quantum scale. One physicist remarked on the strange notion of a superposed particle, with no definite position or velocity : "it's nothing but Information!"
That's why scientists track those neither-here-nor-there particles by their effects on other particles. It's like following the spoor of a deer in the forest, without ever actually seeing the deer. What we "see" is Information about (related to) the particle, not the object itself. So, we use different words, and have different concepts for the various aspects of our world, that in fact are all "expressions" of the same Universal Potential : the power to Enform. :nerd:
The initial singularity is a singularity predicted by some models of the Big Bang theory to have existed before the Big Bang[1] and thought to have contained all the energy and spacetime of the Universe. . . . Although there is no direct evidence for a singularity of infinite density, the cosmic microwave background is evidence that the universe expanded from a very hot, dense state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity
Boot Program :
In computing terms, the term “boot” means to start a computer up from cold. When a computer is initially powered on, commands in the computer's ROM are automatically executed that instruct the computer to load the boot program into memory and execute its instructions.
https://www.dataclinic.co.uk/what-is-a-boot-program/
Note -- the Singularity was the "memory" and the Big Bang was the "execution" of the program.
I like this, thanks. Thought provoking.
What you describe may be mirrored to a degree in life. DNA is close to non-existent in relation to the matter it defines.
Perhaps this is cause for me to rethink my use of the word "intelligence". As example, DNA is not intelligence, it's just information, data. Perhaps what I'm attempting to reference is the DNA of reality?
Where can DNA be found outside living organisms?
Actually, there's an argument that proto-organic matter might exist in vast quantities in interstellar space. This idea was subject of a book called Intelligent Universe by the late, great Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. It's called 'panspermia'. However, to date, no definitive proof of extra-terrestrial DNA has ever been found.
It's also misleading to say that DNA is just information. It's an extremely complex molecular structure which encodes and conveys information - something which, incidentally, has been seized on by intelligent design proponents - see the argument from biological information.
In more mainstream circles, the realisation that DNA encodes information has lead to something of a revolution in biology.
But what conclusions can be drawn from the existence of DNA remains moot according to mainstream science, I think.
So did the moon learn to smile, or something?
Well, no where that I'm aware of. I was just struggling to respond to the interesting point made by Gnomon.
Especially this part...
While DNA does have physical dimensions, it seems to play about the same role as what Gnomom is talking about.
The reference was not to bio-chemical DNA, but to the non-physical "instructions" encoded in the chemical structure. The distinction is between the "carrier" of information Quanta (def 1.)and the message "content" Qualia (def 2.). We now use those letters metaphorically in reference to any design information (blueprint) that results in the construction of physical structure, such as the Universe. The Big Bang Singularity is sometimes compared to a Black Hole, in which material information is compressed into something we would no longer recognize as matter. It's close to pure, un-embodied mathematical information. :nerd:
DNA :
[i]1. self-replicating material that is present in nearly all living organisms as the main constituent of chromosomes. It is the carrier of genetic information.
2. the fundamental and distinctive characteristics or qualities of someone or something, especially when regarded as unchangeable.[/i]
___Oxford
I like this idea a lot, it is fascinating at the least. And I've never thought of it before this thread. So your participation is appreciated.
If I understand, the claim would seem to be that nature compresses something which exists (weight, mass, form etc) in to something which is real, but does not exist (no weight, mass, form etc)
This relationship between that which exists, and that which is real but doesn't exist, is of increasing interest here.
What happens to those instructions after the big bang?
Where are they now?
That's the crux of the Black Hole Information paradox. Everything that exists in reality is ultimately a form of quantum information, sometimes called a "quantum field" of empty space, where potential (virtual) particles pop in & out of existence. But when matter is sucked into a Black Hole, it's crushed & ripped-apart like a garbage grinder. So, where does the essential information go?
Since structural information is equivalent to causal Energy, complete destruction would contradict the First Law of Thermodynamics. Some have guessed that the squeezed essence of matter (thinking it's like orange juice) may have disappeared into a parallel universe. But, since quantum level Information (patterns, relationships) is mathematical, it actually occupies no space. So, compression doesn't destroy it, it just deconstructs the physical form that we can sense. Hence, I would say that the original information still exists, but is recycled back into Potential instead of Actual matter. :nerd:
Energy - Information equivalence :
The bit of information is equivalent to a quantum of minimum energy
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1401/1401.6052.pdf
The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one form into another.
The black hole information paradox :
The black hole information paradox is a puzzle resulting from the combination of quantum mechanics and general relativity. Calculations suggest that physical information could permanently disappear in a black hole, allowing many physical states to devolve into the same state. . . . This is controversial because it violates a core precept of modern physics—t
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
Quoting Foghorn
Those instructions are now doing their job. Like the encoded patterns of DNA, they are used as blueprints for construction of matter. And, like DNA, the code is recycled (reproduced) from one job to another, to continue the assembly of an expanding material universe.
I get this part pretty much.
So the data survives hyper-compression. Where is the data now? This question might help me tie my theory to what you're saying.
I'm arguing along the lines that "intelligence" (likely a wrong word to use) is a property, not of this or that thing, but of reality itself. If we change the word "intelligence" to "data" maybe my theory becomes more science-like?
Yes. But I prefer the term "Information", because it exists in two basic forms in the real world. The original meaning of the term, referred to meanings in minds. But it has recently been applied to describe the causal power (to enform) of Energy. Since Energy is not a static property of matter, limited to a single form, it hops from one physical object to another. It's a general property of reality, not a specific property of any one thing. :smile:
Casual power to enform?
Quoting Gnomon
Ok, I like this. And if it's true that matter is a form of energy, then nothing belongs to anybody? :-)
The terminology I'm using here comes from my personal worldview, as expressed in the Enformationism thesis, in which everything in this world is one form or another of generic causal creative Energy, which I call "EnFormAction".
[i]EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. . . . AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Enform : To form; to fashion, to create.
Are you advocating Communism? :joke:
Ok, I can vote for this. I'm obsessed with the notion of a single unified reality (with apparent divisions being a distortion generated by how our minds work) If I understand, you're saying something similar, using your own flavor of language.
More likely Blowhardism. :-)
intelligence doesnt exist
either does information
in reality there is only complexity and patterns
cause and effect