The emergence of Intelligence and life in the world
Just wondering where intelligence and life came from in the universe. I hold to the theory that it evolved in the natural world on its own however I believe it was given an initial push or spark by a divine force.
As in the emergence or jump from inanimate matter to living things (abiogenesis) could not happen by chance alone. But then we’re inevitably drawn into the argument of probability to which I’d say that the complexity of life’s building blocks such as DNA and RNA is astronomically high.
I just find it improbable that life could emerge on its own without some sort of divine push to get things started…what is your take on this ?
As in the emergence or jump from inanimate matter to living things (abiogenesis) could not happen by chance alone. But then we’re inevitably drawn into the argument of probability to which I’d say that the complexity of life’s building blocks such as DNA and RNA is astronomically high.
I just find it improbable that life could emerge on its own without some sort of divine push to get things started…what is your take on this ?
Comments (117)
Intelligence? Life? I've been here quite a while and, thus far, I've yet to see anything of the sort. :grin:
Jokes aside, it's a fair question. But quite one-dimensional, unfortunately. It's a binary dynamic. It either "is" or "isn't." Sure, the ramifications of either could fill an entire library, several even. But inevitably we all seem to return to the same talking points and implications, do we not?
Of course, assuming your assumptions are correct, it leads to greater questions still. Who or what created said divine force? This is echoed in many other forms of religious philosophy, the idea of no beginning and therefore no end. It's a bit hard to truly grasp, despite most believing they do by simple fact of understanding elementary level words and conjunction.
As I'm sure you're aware, no known science has been able to create this "jump" as you refer to it between the inanimate and the animate. But I feel we're depriving ourselves of a much more robust debate, that is to say by focusing on the question of "whether given enough time, with enough possibility, enough unknowns, enough what have you and what not, could a hypothetical and alleged 'primordial soup' devoid of life one day spring forth such?" we side-skirt the rational and regardless as far as what such really implies to those curious. Wouldn't you say? :smile:
What is curious is that life arose from a basic form to ever higher levels of complexity and up to exhibiting intelligence. The question in my mind is the world could have continued to be lifeless yet here we are. I’m not sure if speculating regarding the origins of divinity is helpful but as a starting point and as explanation of why there is life it helps some
what. Of course it’s the elephant in the room of what or who created this divinity so whilst speculation would be interesting I think it would be beyond the scope of reason to understand where it came from and the motives and intentions of such divinity. For example why would it create life in the first place ? There would be many reasons of course and I can’t pretend to know it’s mind however it at least must be curios to have other life forms emerge in the world and not just itself. Maybe to see see how we think and feel about all this.
I find it even more improbable that a completely nonevident "divine push" got "things started".
I’m inferring evidence from the exhibits such as life and intelligence. Though naturalistic processes can give rise to life and intelligence the universe appears fine tuned via various constants to support it.
Although not impossible the chances of life arising from non life are astronomically low something like finding a specific grain of sand in all the beaches of earth blind folded. But tiny chance does not mean impossible right ?
Your implausibility is based upon:
Quoting kindred
Implying that complexity cannot be the result of physical processes without at least a divine spark or push to give what does not have life some sort of complexity-forming ability that it did not previously have.
This reminds me of the argument for intelligent design due to specified complexity. Here's a philosophy now article going over it., but it's different from what you're arguing though related (just a resource to think through your question).
What I think: Incredulity isn't a reason to accept a premise or reject a premise. At one point that there are irrational numbers was thought incredulous, yet it's been demonstrated that there are such numbers. Much of our discoveries were thought unbelievable -- until demonstrated that they had to be believed due to such and such evidence or argument.
Also, complexity isn't something unique to life. Computers are complicated, and inanimate. Cars are complicated and inanimate. M. C. Escher drawings are complicated and yet only drawings. The path a river follows is complicated, and the result of natural forces.
So it seems to me that complexity does not explain the "jump", or difference, between life and not-life.
Of course the creationist will point to the order of a river and human creation as ultimately deriving from the structure God imbues in creation.
The naturlaist will say: But it is, indeed, possible for order to arise out of meaningless chaos. Just look at evolution!
It’s not just a matter of complexity but of function too, from single celled organisms to fully fledged human beings. I do not discount evolution at all. Although if there’s a divine creator I cannot discount that man was one of its many intended end products. Since I cannot probe the mind of such divinity I will not enter that arena of speculation for now.
As intelligent and creative species that we are the question of how life emerged up to this pinnacle of function must not be discounted. Abiogenesis is not an exact science and scientists have been unable to replicate the emergence of life from non life but that is not to say that it will not happen someday. This means that we’re left with naturalistic explanations that life did somehow emerge from non life through natural hit and miss chance or that there was a divine spark that set things in motion to begin with. For now the case remains wide open due to science having no answers yet in terms of replicating the jump of life from non life.
I think what happened was special in a sense, from inanimate rocks to intelligent beings. To think it happened by chance is a bit like winning the lottery 100 times in a row with different numbers each time. However long those odds are.
Of course statistically speaking it would be easier for inanimate objects to have remained inanimate but the fact they didn’t just proves that some form of intelligence probably predated the intelligence that we currently manifest.
Just because you don’t get it doesn’t mean it’s not there to be got.
Have you heard of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment ?
Whether the laws of physics or nature imply a divinity is a question worth raising because after all would that not explain the orderliness in the world ?
The question of life is not merely a how (science is pretty good at how’s) but why too. Why did the universe not remain lifeless … it is far easier for that to have occurred rather than the improbable which is life.
If I climb a ladder with a ball, and I drop the ball from the top of the ladder, and it falls to the ground, I would call that non-random behavior. Does that represent intelligent order? Are you saying that any order is intelligent order? Any pattern at all requires intentional action?
I was not aware of that. I think the point remains though … of course the experiment cannot be carried out because of the timescales involved in the emergence of life which took place over millions of years, yet that experiment hints at how non organic matter can produce amino acids given the right initial conditions.
But so what to think that this organic matter could walk and talk leads me to think that naturalistic explanations are not sufficient on the grounds that the manifestation of ever increasing sophistication and intelligence would imply a pre existing intelligence in the first place or in other words divinity.
Just boom, voila life seems a bit … well unbelievable to happen. And without any divinity it would be a magnificent deed indeed for life to emerge unaided. With divinity as explanatory power then not so much.
Perhaps I’m trying to prove God here and to me the emergence of life from non life seems to be an appealing argument.
It does not represent order but a rule. And it there’s rules there gotta be a rule maker right ?
A rule says how things have to behave. A pattern says how things do behave. The world doesn’t have to behave in any particular way, but it does behave in a particular way. I don’t see why you need a god for that.
Sure it's unbelievable, on its face. Why else would it take so much effort to demonstrate, and even after such demonstrations people's beliefs often persist?
It seems like it's designed. But I think this appearance is deceiving, and somewhat cherry-picked. If we look at the totality of all the universe we see that life does, in fact, seem rare. If abiogensis is unlikely we'd predict to see a universe devoid of life, and that's what most of the universe is: without life.
It's definitely appealing. Kant ranked it as the most natural argument for the existence of God.
But just like incredulity is not a reason to draw an inference an argument can be appealing and yet lead one to believe something false.
One thing that the science does not do, however, is rule out a creator. It just has no need of one because we can synthesize the molecules of life in a lab so it doesn't seem to add anything to the explanation when chemistry will do to explain how the molecules of life formed.
No I don’t need god to account for the orderliness and stability of the universe. Yet if one constant in the universe was off by the tiniest margin then the universe would be unstable. What or who do you think fine tuned those constants in the fabric of this universe. I assume you will say it’s chance and I say those chances are pretty low.
The way I see it there are two explanations, the naturalistic one and the divine one. And the fact that life emerged into this lifeless universe enforces my view of the latter.
One issue remains with this and it’s regarding the properties of different atoms and the glue that holds the protons in the nucleus. For example hydrogen got 1, helium 2 etc. ignoring the life argument for a second why would there be a physical rule that says two protons must give rise to different properties of such atoms. Sure that certain physical law is called the strong nuclear force but why are these laws there in the first place … does this not imply a lawmaker to you ?
If there were no laws to dictate how atoms behave what would there be ? Nothing I assume, well at least no matter but I’m no physicist.
Why would there be a fundamental forces of nature such as these in the universe in the first place ? Again this to me seems to point towards divinity.
I think the most sensible answer to this is that we don’t know as yet. A “God of the gaps” explanation, or an appeal to magic, while understandable, seems primitive and comes with its own problems. Since the idea of God is largely unknowable and arguably incoherent (depending on which of the many models one adopts), God has no real explanatory power. What does it actually mean to say “God did it”? It seems less like an explanation and more like an inscrutable placeholder that stops inquiry rather than advancing it.
The point of the argument is to prove that god exists by way of understanding the artefacts of creation such as life and intelligence. If we can’t truly explain something by way of science then god becomes more plausible and because the emergence of life is one of such mysteries then I see nothing wrong with using god as explanatory power.
What is wrong with believing in god or god and science ?
I think this gets an understanding of scientific laws backwards: it isn't that there are laws to which we are approximating but rather we crave certainty and so law-like structures are appealing to us so we set out to find the law-like patterns that have arisen out of the chaos.
But they do not necessarily have to be this way, and we could in fact have them wrong. They aren't laws of the universe which particles must obey, but regularities we've observed so far which could turn out to be wrong.
Quoting kindred
Does there need to be an explanation? Doesn't explantion eventually reach a terminus?
I'd put it that the theist is satisfied with the logical terminus of God, and the naturalist is satisfied with the logical terminus of nature.
But both are consistent with the science so science doesn't really rule one way or the other.
Quoting kindred
Nothing.
At least insofar that we recognize that this isn't where the science leads one, but is rather something we bring to the science.
You tell me.
Quoting kindred
For my money, the argument proves nothing, for the reasons I’ve already given. God is not really an explanation for anything. An explanation explains, by showing how or why something occurs. Saying “God did it” merely replaces the question with a supernatural label. It amounts to saying that a supernatural power, or magic, did it, which adds no explanatory content.
I imagine that the argument might work if you already believe gods are real.
The best you can say is "don't know." I am as suspicious of god being thrown into explanatory gaps as I am of the overreliance on evolution made it. Although evolution at least has an evidential basis.
Yet, if a naturalism falls short of explaining certain phenomena such as the emergence of life and the only logical explanation is god would you not be swayed by it or remain in the I don’t know camp. Phenomena fall into two categories the explained and the yet to be explained.
If the yet to be explained can never be explained because it would be outside the remit of science but the god did it explanation you would reject on the basis that you don’t believe in god ? I find this argument unsatisfactory because god could exist and it could be the reason for the emergence of life.
I don’t think science and god are mutually exclusive. I’m not saying everything that science can’t explain should be argued that god did it. But god should not be ruled out.
So wherein is the value of the Devine as answer?
We can't rule out a natural cause of life and since there is pretty much zero evidence of supernatural entities, a natural cause seems more likely to me. But "don't know" are two words that should be used more often by more people.
Quoting kindred
You can’t say something can never be explained. That claim can’t be demonstrated. At best, all you can show is that this is where the inferences lead you, but that largely reflects a belief you already hold.
I would not say there is no god, because that claim can’t be demonstrated either.
But this question isn’t about god. It’s about whether life can, in principle, be explained by natural processes. At present, we simply don’t know, but lack of explanation now is not evidence of impossibility. And none of us here have any expertise on the lates scientific research into this matter.
The issue I have with the naturalistic position is that while it’s good to how things work and to some extent why. For example why is there life ? The naturalist would say because of chemical reactions created primitive organic matter which created single cell organism and so on.
Yet some whys it cannot answer why did two such atoms or molecules interact in such and such a way rather than remaining inert. Where did the properties of such atoms come from to enable such interactions between different atoms or molecules to allow for chemistry to happen and why do chemical reactions happen. Because each element is set in such a way that when conditions are right it will react with another element to produce something completely different. But why ? Haha I realise this comes across as the inquiry of a 5 year old where why’s never end but it shows that we don’t know the answer to every why but that does not necessarily lead to god either. Just that it’s likely that if there’s a god then it probably kickstarted life. If not then life started by itself. No god required.
No problem either way
I see this problem as related to the question of where did everything come from. Big bang would say the naturalist without speculating any further of what existed before time and space and though there are scientific theories they cannot be proven ( such as cyclical universe, multiverse etc)
The theist would say something along the lines of god was before time and space alpha and omega etc. and it was the cause of the universe, prime mover etc.
Not sure what the naturalist would make of the prime mover argument.
What does that mean—unstable? A universe with different properties would be a different universe, not an unstable one. I don’t know how the underlying principles of our universe get established, but they had to be something, right? If I deal from a deck of cards, some hand has to come up. A royal straight flush in spades is exactly as likely as a two of clubs, seven of diamonds, queen of diamonds, five of hearts, and nine of spades. Neither is anything special unless we decide that they are for our own reasons. Those reasons are not the universe’s reasons.
Quoting kindred
As I see it, this is a complete non-sequitur.
There are some things science will never be able to explain such as what existed before the big bang. It’s just physically impossible because that’s when time and space began. Before that science cannot know.
It is possible that god was there all along (though I can’t prove it) and possibly gave rise to the big bang. Like you I’m not a scientist and I don’t know where the universe came from best I know is that there was some big bang and here we are. Before that we will never know not through science anyway.
By unstable I mean the universe would simply collapse after only existing for a brief amount of time.
Quoting T Clark
Well they’re special because only some universes would support life and not others.
A bit. Though I ought note that scientists have already ventured beyond "the big bang" in terms of physics and such.
Scientists don't stop.
The naturalist, in terms of people who believe in a prime mover, more or less assigns "prime mover" status to nature itself: rather than an intentional, intelligent cause with a reason for existence we arose out of a chaotic, blind process which we just happen to get to be a part of, and whatever that is that's nature.
You need to define what divine push is, and list the range of actions he/she can/does perform.
It would entail providing the right conditions and chemistry for life to happen at earliest stage and then let evolution do the rest.
In contrast to aristotles prime mover then.
If life is purely a cosmic naturalistic fluke that happened without any divine intervention to kick start it, it quickly developed intelligent self awareness such as us. I guess that’s the power of evolution and adaptation to environment.
I think it’s magnificent either way divine intervention or completely naturalistic. Despite the Uray abiogenesis experiment there are so many leaps going from amino acids to rna replication to dna etc that it would be like winning the lottery multiple times in a row and I don’t think this was pure chance alone but some helping hand to get things started then let evolution do its thing.
Oh, yes. Definitely. I love science because of this magnificence.
Quoting kindred
I'm of the opposite opinion. I'm sure you're surprised ;)
Yes, it is like winning the lottery multiple times in a row. That's improbable and possible. And such is life from my perspective -- though there is a physics theory I've run across that tries to demonstrate that life is inevitable (even if it's rare).
Given an infinite universe the unbelievably unlikely will happen at least one time, though. (and if it's truly infinite, it will happen an infinite number of times)
So, what is the nature and origin of some sort of divine who pushed to get things started i.e. where does the divine itself come from, and how did he find out the right conditions and chemistry for life? What was the divine's intention / motive for providing the right conditions and chemistry for life to happen?
If evolution is true, then why humans have not evolved since Socrates and Buddha were alive?
Humans have evolved. It's just not very noticeable. Evolution is a gradual process.
Quoting Moliere
Everything that happens was once almost infinitely unlikely. What are the odds of a flipped coin coming up heads 10,000 times in a row? If you flip a coin 10,000 times, whatever sequence of heads and tails occurs was equally unlikely before the first flip. But some sequence will always occur.
Quoting kindred
Can you explain how you know this is true. It certainly doesn’t seem that way to me.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/12/19/the-universe-really-is-fine-tuned-and-our-existence-is-the-proof/
If you read the article it says something along the lines of what I am saying
Either that or life and intelligence developed by itself unaided. Does not appear feasible given the odds of going from non life to life. A helping hand in the form of a pre existing intelligence would explain why intelligence exists today.
Life could not have developed at all which leads me to think it had a helping hand to get it kickstarted.
Ok, we can start here. Where did you learn about the idea of a divine intelligence? From a book right? But it was a book written by people that didn't have any knowledge of anatomy beyond the basics, no modern medicine, no electricity, no university system, etc. Why do you think that book has any authority? Because it said it did? Think about that for a minute.
Now, lets look at the modern theory of evolution. Its backed by carefully recorded observations and countless tests. It even invites you to doubt it. It does not assert, "Evolution is real, and you are evil for doubting it." It says, "Here's the evidence, check it out and see if it holds up." Have you read and understood the modern theory of evolution beyond the basic high school introduction? Read up on it, understand it, and even challenge it here. Then we'll see if you still hold onto the belief that its improbable.
There are (I guess) a nearly infinite number of configurations a universe could take on. Each one would be (I guess) just as likely as any other. We just happen to live in a Royal straight flush of a universe, i.e. one where human life could evolve. If it hadn’t worked out that way, there’d be nobody around to wonder, or at least nobody like us.
As for the article you linked, my understanding of what it said is that, although the universe is fine tuned, it was not tuned by something from the outside. It was tuned by itself.
If you care to look closely into ancient Greek art objects such as sculptures drawings of humans, you will notice there is no changes in the human physical body compared to folks in recent times. If evolution were true, humans should have wings to fly around the cities and some other physical features combating environmental pollution. No such things can be noticed.
You need to define what intelligent life is. You also need to clarify the origin and nature of the divine being who pushed intelligent life into being.
Here in the U.S., we've become fatter.
I appreciate what you mean. But it is not a result of evolution. Could it be the effect of bad diet, no exercise and too much television watching?
The theory of Creation, from a supernatural source, is older than Genesis. But since the 17th century, most secular scientists have assumed, without evidence, that our Nature, our world, is eternal. Yet in the 20th century, a few astronomers & cosmologists set out to turn-back the clock of Nature as far as it would go. The result of that empirical experiment, and others since, indicated that the Cosmic Clock mysteriously started ticking at Time Zero, about 14billion earth-years ago . . . for no apparent reason. Which raised two questions : a> who or what wound-up and started the clock, and b> what existed in the time-before-time?
There are two non-supernatural answers : a> No-one and b> Nothing. Empirical Science cannot function without physical evidence. And the available evidence does not provide any support, beyond the so-called Big Bang Barrier to research, for the functional mathematical concepts of Eternity or Infinity. Hence, your Scientific curiosity should not extend beyond the physical evidence of Nature. And, in the absence of physical cycles, the notion of Time is non-sense.
However, Philosophical curiosity has never been solely about Concrete Physical Reality, but also about Meta-Physical Ideality, where only Abstract Ideas and Platonic Forms exist. So, thought-experiments can go where empirical Science cannot. And your conjectural hypothesis, of an initial spark-like initial condition, is just as valid as any other. For example, the Bang Theory presupposes both Causal Energy (low entropy) and Limiting Laws (information & principles). Such hypotheses are supported not by physical evidence, but by rational argument, such as necessity. And, as we see on this forum, philosophical arguments can go on forever : "time without end, amen".
I too, assume, without hard evidence, that Life & Mind evolved naturally in our cyclical time-bound world. But philosophers, as far back as 10,000 years (Hinduism) reasoned that our cycling Life & Death planet must have some more stable eternal foundation. So, they imagined and postulated a timeless ultimate-reality underlying all phenomena. For them, "Brahman is formless but is the birthplace of all forms in visible reality".
Of course, there is no empirical evidence to be found within physical Nature for such a Super-natural "divine force". So, you will have to accept that theory on Faith, not in God or Bible, but in your own Powers of Reason. And others can reject it, on the same basis. But, the notion of Abiogenesis is more accessible to empirical evidence. And we can discuss that in another post. :smile:
I do not deny evolution at all. I just believe that the emergence of intelligence in this universe has a precedent, that is a prior intelligence was what set the initial conditions for life to emerge then from that moment onwards evolution occurred. I think it’s worth pointing out that a lot of things had to be right for the first chemicals to react and combine with each other to enable ever increasing complexity when it came to the creation of life.
The alternative is that intelligent life has no prior precedent and is in fact the first time it has emerged in the world. I find this difficult to accept because it would in fact be easier to posit a pre-existing intelligence (divine) from which the current one sprang from.
Just personal intuition but I do not believe in scripture or holy books as they have no godly authority having been written by man.
Intelligent life is that which is aware, can adapt, problem solve and make choices.
@LuckyR
Nature of the divine on the other hand would only lead me to speculate but it closely resembles the definition of God. As for the origin of god it has no inception or origin as those are mostly mortal terms but something eternal having no past or beginning.
You’re right there isn’t but nature exhibits intelligence in its design so this constitute evidence of a higher power.
Is proof not in the pudding though, by analogy if there’s a pudding does that not entail a pudding maker ? Or do you hold to the idea that pudding just resulted from a random combination of ingredients in just the right way.
I’m of the idea that life was created by a prior life force or at least initially then evolution was afterwards let to run its course creating all sorts of varieties of life.
If you were to discover a watch on a sandy beach would you not assume that watch had a watchmaker? In fact it’s easier to accept a watchmaker rather than the watch being assembled on its own.
Something along those lines though I don't want to put the onus on "ingredients" as if there's a material world with powers invested in it and these powers manifest due to particular combinations of atoms. That strikes me as being too close to an essence which matter possesses. It does appear to me that life is not like a watch, though. The evidence thus far indicates that most life dies out and the lucky winners -- if they are in fact lucky and not miserable -- are selected by environmental pressures beyond our abilities.
So rather than looking at nature as if it has powers or structures or even causes I see it as absurd, uncaring, and without intrinsic meaning. We draw patterns on the arising chaos because we are the meaning-makers of this environment. By finding patterns our species has gone into overshoot -- so we are soon to see if this capacity for creating meaning will, in fact, be as advantageous to our evolutionary future as we tend to believe or if it will be our downfall.
Quoting kindred
I think once you start getting down into the details of life it becomes difficult to believe species were "designed" for anything at all. There are absurd cruelties all throughout nature which explain why we see the diversity of life that we do.
I think life is like a song and wherever there’s a song there must have been a singer. That is my views on life… with the singer being the divine force. You don’t necessarily have to assume one with the other though nor does it point to the cause as being the divine force. Your view is that the melody or song just happened to have manifest and no singer is required.
I understand this point of view. It is credible but incredible for a song to exist without a singer.
I guess this comes down to the teleological argument of which I’m a proponent of here. Sure nature is capable of creating wonders blindly and beautiful birdsong too. But the orders of magnitude of non organic matter to the emergence of a human being with eyes ears and other senses able to navigate its environment just screams towards a divinity of some sort. I think that’s what it would take to animate matter to life … nature on its own without any prior divine spark wouldn’t be able to create this … the world would have just remained lifeless but the fact that it hasn’t points toward the divine.
In my eyes this is a strong and compelling argument towards the existence of god whose nature I can only speculate.
Intelligent Design*1 is a touchy subject on this forum, and is often denigrated as Pseudoscience. But I prefer to label the hypothesis of a pre-Bang Creator as Idealistic Philosophy. For thousands of years, philosophers have postulated an eternal source to explain our temporal world : e.g Brahman*2. And philosophy is based not on physical evidence, but on logical consistency.
For those who infer evidence of Natural Laws, a supernatural lawmaker is a logical corollary. But some view the randomness of Entropy as evidence of "undirected natural processes". And yet, there is no scientific theory to explain how random events could accidentally produce such anti-entropy effects as Life & Mind in the time (less than infinity) allowed by cosmological evidence. That's why some thinkers reject BB theory, and propose their own eternal Multiverse theories, unsupported by empirical evidence.
So, for now, we have a stand-off between contradictory non-empirical conclusions based on abstract reasoning. Such discrepancies guide some thinkers to the perceived necessity for a direct revelation from that "higher power". Hence, we have a plethora of divine scriptures*3a, and personal communications*3b from the higher power. Clearly, the notion of Intelligent Design has a muddled history, and contradictory beliefs & practices.
I suppose that's why another kind of intelligent process has become popular, even among some secular scientists : various forms of Panpsychism*4 and Pantheism. Therefore, as a philosopher, you can take your pick-of-the-crop of "Higher Powers" to serve as your favorite creator or "designer". Those who chose one-or-the-other of these may be considered as Kindred Spirits. Consider me confused. But I do have my own private hypothesis to explain the emergence of intelligence in our little corner of the universe. :smile:
*1. Intelligent Design (ID) is the pseudoscientific concept that certain features of the universe and living things are too complex to have arisen by undirected natural processes like evolution, instead requiring an "intelligent cause," often implying a supernatural creator, though ID proponents typically avoid naming the designer,
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=intelligent+design
*2. Brahman is described as the unchanging "primordial reality" that creates, sustains, and ultimately withdraws the universe within itself, the final element in a dialectical process which cannot be eliminated or annihilated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman
*3a. Divine scriptures are sacred texts revered as the word of God or foundational spiritual wisdom across various religions, including the Vedas and Bhagavad Gita (Hinduism), Torah (Judaism), Bible (Christianity), and Quran (Islam). [you may add Book of Mormon, and many others to this short list]
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=list+of+divine+scriptures
*3b. Note --- Even within each of those ancient traditions, there are off-shoot scriptures (Mormon) and Mystical practices that "prioritize direct, personal experiences of ultimate reality, inner intuition, or ecstatic visions over established religious texts or dogmas".
*4. Panpsychism is the philosophical view that consciousness, mind, or soul is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of all physical matter, rather than a unique product of complex brains.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Panpsychism
Amoebas can be aware of the type of water and depth of water they are in, can adapt for different temperatures of the water, and can solve problems in their navigating to different places in the water making choices which way to move to. Are Amoebas intelligent life?
Why would it be easier? If there's a prior intelligence that had to evolve, it would face the same exact problems we would if it was us who were first. And is a view point that makes a problem easier more important that what's more accurate and true?
Quoting kindred
If a prior intelligence existed, then it would be life. Unless you're talking about an unliving intelligence, which doesn't seem to make sense. Maybe the universe had chat GPT before life, but that seems even less likely. :)
Quoting kindred
Correct, but you're missing the fact that that intelligence that emerged would have the same difficulties. It would have to be alive too.
Quoting kindred
And it would be ok if you did. I don't hold any animosity to faith or different ideas about the universe. Is intuition alone enough to stake a claim on though? Or do we need something rational to back our intuition so we don't fall into a mistaken conclusion? There is nothing wrong with having an intuition, but can you rationally conclude anything beyond that intuition that makes it more likely that there was a prior intelligence that set up today's modern day intelligences?
This misunderstands evolution in many ways: We do not need to fly around cities. Pollution hasn't been a big issue for more than about 300 years.
To develop wings would take in excess of 100 million as I understand. These are simply silly suggestions the betray misunderstandings of hte theory. Some examples of observed evolutionary changes in humans:
Lactose tolerance
Adaptation to Low oxygen, particularly in the Andes
CCR5 HIV resistance
Decreased avg jaw size
Increased impacted wisdom teeth (because we don't need them anymore, basically)
These can be gleaned from observing rapid allele changes across time. In some cases, as little as 1000 years. Every single birth contributes to evolutionary changes. And we can see them :)
The suggestions were purely to give some ideas if evolution worked, what could be the case. It is not saying that we need to fly around cities. But if we could, we would save lots of money for transportation and time too. Who says we don't need to fly around cities apart from you?
Pollution is a serious problem. I am not sure where you live. If you lived in some place forest off grid hunting for your daily meals, maybe you could be pardoned for your ignorance on the issue.
But if you lived in a large city with loads of cars, then you will know the problem. Air pollution destroys folks lungs putting them in the hospitals in large numbers every year.
Quoting AmadeusD
Again it was a simile suggestive point to emphasize that evolution doesn't work. It sounds like you always try your best criticizing the simile suggestions for putting the point across as if it were the central point of the argument. That is real silly.
Your comments give strong impression that you can't read and understand any suggestions put forward in simile statements.
Do you have trouble getting around the city? That would be an evolutionarily pertinent question. And the answer, as a species, is no. We don't. We've adapted technologies for that. Pretty cool, tbh.
Quoting Corvus
Ok, sure. This is not an evolutionary pressure, and if it were what we would see is strengthened lungs which dissolve contaminants (from our current perspective) how plants do with Co2 (in excess of what we need, anyway).
Quoting Corvus
This may be because you provide no arguments to make your similies work. They are suggestions, in your comments. If you want to be clear, be clear. If not, continue :)
It wasn't about me, but it was about clarifying your misunderstandings. Your posts contain spelling mistakes on the basic simple English words too, which gives impression you are not in clear mind when typing posts.
Quoting AmadeusD
You sounded you were taking in the figure of speech statements in wrong way, hence it was for clearing your misunderstandings on them. Hope it helped.
Well, the question seems to be whether matter and spacetime are fundamental, or are they emergent from some other source (of information). The short answer is, of course, we do not know.
Some would say that information is more basic than matter, but that leads to the question - "Information about what?"
It's just difficult for me to imagine that anything exists outside of spacetime and matter. To answer that it is something "divine" just seems to me an imaginary answer to an unanswerable question.
Are you not quite aware of typos? This is an absolutely ridiculous ad hominem.
Quoting Corvus
As noted i the quote you've used, no, it did not :) Status quo remains...Evolution is occurring.
I was only pointing out your ability of understanding English and bad spelling at times, which seems to be the cause for your misunderstanding, because you asked silly questions. It was not ad hominem at all.
Quoting AmadeusD
"i the quote you've used"? It doesn't make sense grammatically. There is no sign of evolution anywhere. :)
Not to worry.
Your examples don't prove human evolution conclusively. Not sure where you shoveled across the examples from, but those are just features which could be different from individuals to individuals. Some folks are more tolerant than others, and some folks have different sizes just like everyone has different heights and weights for their bodies. Not concrete evidence for evolution.
It is not a good practice to claim ad hominem when your weakness has been exposed by your own doings. I would have never mentioned your grammar and spelling, if you didn't attack the simile statements as if they were the central part of the argument.
The claim to ad hominem was just a plain reading of your responses. If you feel that's wrong, that's fine. I accept we see your comments differently. But it seems patently clear to me that picking up on typos (which follow a pattern, generally) and claiming this speaks to my state of mind is an ad hominem, and a pretty abysmal one at that.
If you'd like to do a bit of reading, I presume you will take the requisite several weeks to get comfortable with the concepts in these papers, read them, parse them and then interpret them to your heart's content before commenting:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230201/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25030307/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16778047/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5004836/?
https://arxiv.org/abs/1308.4951?
https://rosenberglab.stanford.edu/papers/GoldbergEtAl2018-OxfordBiblioEvolBiol.pdf
I said in my previous post that your examples don't seem to have credibility for the concrete evidence of evolution is true. Please read it again.
Quoting AmadeusD
If you keep making the same mistakes more than once, then it cannot be typos.
Quoting AmadeusD
You seem to be being too sensitive and emotional.
You can say you agree or disagree with the other poster's point with your supporting arguments why you do or don't. But if you add the words like "fail", "nonsense", "silly", or any of derogatory negative emotional nature which is not adding anything to the actual argument in the topic, then your posts will not get credibility, and the other poster will hit you back with the similar tone in their response to you.
Quoting AmadeusD
Thanks for the link. But recently my way of philosophizing is via mostly relying on my own thinking and reasoning. I don't read any information in the internet. I will read the original works by the historical philosophers. Hence my idea on evolution is from my own reasoning and inferring on the theory.
Addressed.
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting Corvus
clearly, the same mistake being made continually is habitual. That is how typos work. I am uninterested in your position on tihs. It was a ridiculous thing to bring up and your pretense was horrible.
Quoting Corvus
I literally just said it's a plain reading. Good god man.
Quoting Corvus
"fail" and "nonsense" are objective descriptors. They can be wrong. I'll leave it there, because I already allowed room for that disagreement. Not interesting.
Quoting Corvus
Clearly. This may be way you think Evolution isn't true. If you refuse to engage the professionals, your reasoning and thinking is not adequate by definition as you do not have the requisite knowledge to reason on the topic. I admit, I've read almost everything in these papers and gone over prior iterations of the concepts, and I'm still only part way there. There is not a lot to be said for an autodidact about a field which has been accumulative for 150 years or more.
Totally unnecessary words in philosophical discussions. You are just letting everyone know you lost control of your emotion.
Quoting AmadeusD
I would rather discuss any topic with the folks who think with their own mind rather than listing lots of links. Right or wrong can be clarified and judged later by more discussions, arguments and evidence.
A rock rolling down a hill is entirely determined by forces already acting on it—gravity, momentum, friction. But even a bacterium swimming toward a glucose gradient is doing something different. It's not just responding to the current chemical concentration; it's effectively "acting for the sake of" reaching higher concentrations that don't yet exist in its immediate vicinity. The bacterium's molecular machinery embodies a kind of normativity—glucose is "good," toxins are "bad"—and this creates genuine directedness toward future states.
Likewise the very first characteristic that life has to have is memory - it has to preserve a record of experience. Of course, rocks bear the impact of what has happened to them, but it has no further bearing on what they do, in the way that does for living things. So perhaps it can be argued that the emergence of life just is also the emergence of intentionality.
Quoting Questioner
Numbers, geometrical forms, logical laws, are good candidates, although, mind you, these don't exist in the sense that sense-objects do. They are real in a different sense - but real nonetheless. Whether they are found 'in nature' or 'in the mind' is the perennial question. Perhaps they are found in the relationship between them. Which again, is not something that exists inside spacetime, rather, space and time exist within it.
Very interesting. But I am not sure that I agree. Numbers, forms, laws are measurements? And you need to have something to measure?
This is a scientific response. "We do not know". :up:
It's okay to question abiogenesis. Other theories say the origin of life came from outerspace and was brought here on Earth. But, then the question remains, how did life start in the universe?
I've always been drawn to 'panspermia'. I have the original book on it, by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasingha, called The Intelligent Universe, published around 1989. They argue that life on Earth originates from, and is constantly influenced by, microorganisms or genetic material arriving from space. They say the probability of life spontaneously generating on Earth is to all intents zero, with Hoyle famously arguing that the complexity of enzymes makes it impossible. Hoyle proposes that the universe itself possesses intelligence (hence the title!) which engenders life through finely-tuned physical constants (e.g., Hoyle's discovery of carbon resonance). Evolutionary Input: Earthly evolution is not solely driven by natural selection, but by the influx of viruses and bacteria from space, which can introduce new traits or even explain the rapid development of human intelligence. His colleague Chandra Wickramasinghe is still active to this day, in his native Sri Lanka.
Thanks for your time.
I am not your work boss. I wasn't saying to you not to use negative words in your posting. My point was, say whatever you want, but if you did, don't make up the other party's response in the same level as yours into ad hominem.
By the way, your examples for evolution look like variances in different individuals, or adaptations in life, rather than evolution. IOW, you seem to be confusing between adaption and evolution.
Most Philosophers are somewhat argumentative, and don't readily accept "easy" answers, such as "God did it". They may then ask, where did this magical God come from? And the "easy" answer is that Gods, by definition, are self-existent and meta-physical, with no need for gradual evolution from lifeless stuff to living beings. Believe it, or not!
However, once an entity has achieved on-going existence (Life), it's assumed to be on the long & winding path to increasing Intelligence (Mind). For example, Materialism presumes that the random jostling of atoms, over some large fraction of Infinity, will inevitably stumble across the formula for Life, and then Mind. But, that's an audacious speculation, based on nothing but wishful thinking. It attributes the Potential for Life & Mind to mundane Matter, without offering evidence, other than the "easy" observation that all life in this world is matter-based.
So, for "hard" thinkers, a cogent & consistent path from Nothing to Being is required to provide a foundation for further speculation. In other words, we need to know the, logical if not physical, steps from non-life to biology. Including the "prior precedent" for Life & Mind (e.g. Intelligent Agents, if any) that might explain the time-bound existence of our physical Reality. So, traditionally, Gods are defined as existing in some state of Ideality (an imaginary or spiritual state of being). Even details of inherent Potential for animation of matter, remain unexplained and undefined.
Throughout history though, to provide that foundation for understanding the mysteries of the real world, almost all human cultures have developed some notion of a powerful-but-invisible autonomous Being that serves as an explanation for the question : why is there something instead of nothing : i.e. creation of our visible world. You can call that theory : Cosmogenesis*1. The Torah contains the familiar easy answer of Genesis, where our world, complete with energy, matter and living creatures, was created in a single work week by divine fiat : "let there be light" and everything else necessary for a functioning cosmos.
Of course, that's Magic, and offers no scientific or philosophical reasons for being, except the inscrutable Will of God. Even pseudoscience theories of Panspermia, omit the details for Cosmogenesis, and just assume that our material world is, like the gods, self-existent. Hence, life on Earth is just an accident of seed-sowing from one habitat to another. So, if you want to limit this discussion to the physically existing Real world and empirical evidence --- as the thread title indicates --- you'll need to develop some scientific theory of Abiogenesis*2. But, If you are willing to just take Cosmogenesis for granted --- no knowable First Cause --- there is no need to deal with the fraught theories of "pre-existing intelligence (divine)". :smile:
*1. Cosmogenesis refers to the origin, creation, or development of the universe, often exploring the intersection of scientific, philosophical, and spiritual perspectives on its expansion.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=cosmogenesis
*2. Abiogenesis is the scientific theory that life originated from non-living, inorganic matter through natural chemical processes on early Earth, approximately 3.5 to 4 billion years ago. It proposes a gradual, multi-step transition from simple organic compounds to complex self-replicating molecules and, ultimately, the first cells, rather than a single, spontaneous event.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=abiogenesis+theory
Note --- The Miller-Urey experiment in 1952 showed that some precursors for life (e.g. amino acids) could be produced from specially-selected inorganic materials zapped with energy. But the actual transition from non-life to life has not been observed experimentally in the 74 years since then. Moreover, there are no known precursors for Cosmos from Chaos. Therefore, the original Emergence of the evolving world remains an open (philosophical) question.
Fascinating!
This is, to me, the most plausible explanation -- that microorganisms have been around.
:grin: Will check it out.
What I find interesting is how these amino acids form in space; from Gemini;
Amino acids form in cold interstellar molecular clouds, where cosmic dust grains are coated with ices (water, methane, ammonia, carbon monoxide). When these ices are exposed to ultraviolet radiation (UV) or cosmic rays, they trigger chemical reactions that produce complex organic compounds, including amino acids like glycine and tryptophan.
It’s as though the physical universe is set up for these things to happen.
Yes a pre-existing intelligence would face the same evolutionary challenge as the current one, however if one posits an eternal intelligence that is uncaused then infinite regress would be avoided because then one could no longer ask what created that prior intelligence as that one had always been.
This prior uncaused intelligence would be divine in nature or god which would have provided the initial spark for the current life / intelligence to emerge.
Very good! Yes I would posit an eternal intelligence or divine being as the precursor to current life and intelligence to avoid any infinite regress issues that come with this question.
This eternal uncaused and always existing intelligence would initially provide the spark for life then let evolution do the rest, without it the jump from the inanimate to the animate would never have occurred. But of course for us mortals this type of eternal being would be incomprehensible hence the metaphysical speculation on this thread.
We can not truly know the nature of such a being which is intelligent and having always existed so for now it remains an ontological mystery. This ties in to the question of why there is something rather than nothing.
Nothing it appears to be impossible since something exists and since something cannot come from nothing then this something must have always existed. The question then is whether it possessed intelligence.
The question concerns eternal being as well as far as the argument goes if something can’t come from nothing then something has always existed, timeless and uncaused. If it’s timeless then either it already possessed intelligence or if not then during a fraction of eternity developed it.
That's not a reason for it existing however. And you're creating a scenario which seems impossible. A living being that has always existed. Isn't that just a concept and nothing grounded in experience?
Quoting kindred
Why would it be divine? We would have no indicator of why it created intelligence that exists today. No indicator that it even had any special powers. It might simply be an intelligence that used technology to create today's life.
You may be interested in reading my paper here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15722/the-logic-of-a-universal-origin-and-meaning I cover a lot of the questions I'm noting here.
Sure it’s just a concept however I’d like to point out the following argument.
Something cannot come from nothing, it’s just impossible logically and physically. If so then something (the whole universe) did not have a starting point in time for existence meaning it has always existed.
The question then is whether the same logic can apply to intelligence. Is it possible to get intelligence from non-intelligence. If you subscribe to abiogenesis as being the origin of life then the answer is yes however as the first argument highlights eternal existence then this points out to two different possibilities either this eternal uncaused existence has also been eternally intelligent or during some fraction of eternity developed intelligence perhaps us exhibiting it would be the first time it has happened.
This is a likely possibility, just because something has anyways existed does not mean that it was necessarily divine. By divine I mean possessing uncaused intelligence.
But could we really claim that during this universes existence that life really developed for the first time 4.5 billion years ago ? How would we know that during the eternal existence that it had not appeared before ? And if it had appeared before would it not have attained divine status ?
@Wayfarer
If we grant the supposition that life came from outer space then it still begs the question of its origin as @L'éléphant pointed out.
Abiogenesis of course explains the origin of life but could there be an underlying intelligence in the universe that gave life its first inception?
Does intelligence have an origin, a time when it first appeared or is it like the nature of reality timeless and uncaused ?
Or its possible that something spontaneously appeared. Not 'caused by nothing' but simply began. Seems equally as plausible as something always existing.
Quoting kindred
We know this is true. Just like life came from non-life, life evolved to be ever more intelligent until we reach human kind.
Quoting kindred
All of these suppositions are fine, but are they any more likely or reasonable than other suppositions which do not involve a divine eternally pre-existing intelligence?
Spontaneously appeared? Not possible… it would have been from something. How can something come from nothing please explain. If it simply began then that would imply that existence is not eternal. That it did indeed have a starting point. You would face the problem of how something can come from nothing
Quoting Philosophim
An uncaused being would not necessary have to be eternally divine but if it sprang from eternal existence then it might have attained divinity sometime along the way. Or it could have been eternally divine and by divine I mean what we normally associate with god.
How can nothing always exist? Doesn't that mean it spontaneously always was? How is your idea any different in plausibility than mine?
I have no qualms with the idea of an eternal or divine being, but logically you can't have qualms with something spontaneously appearing either if that's the case.
I'm not saying this as a Christian evangalist, because I'm not one - but this is precisely what 'Creation Ex Nihilo' means. It means, 'created from nothing'.
A Catholic scholar notes: 'The Greek natural philosophers were quite correct in saying that from nothing, nothing comes. But by “comes” they meant a change from one state to another, which requires some underlying material reality. It also requires some pre-existing possibility for that change, a possibility that resides in something.
Creation, on the other hand, is the radical causing of the whole existence of whatever exists. To be the complete cause of something’s existence is not the same as producing a change in something. It is not a matter of taking something and making it into something else, as if there were some primordial matter which God had to use to create the universe. Rather, Creation is the result of the divine agency being totally responsible for the production, all at once and completely, of the whole of the universe, with all it entities and all its operations, from absolutely nothing pre-existing' (from Catholic Answers).
Creation from nothing might sound preposterous - but stop and consider what the cosmology of the so-called 'Big Bang' implies. It is that the entire vast universe 'exploded' into existence from a single infinitely hot and dense point, 'the singularity'. It would be a mistake to try and envisage that as 'an explosion', however, as there is no 'outside' from which to envisage it. Everything we know exists, is 'inside' that event; there was no space into which it could have 'exploded'.
But the resonance between this idea, and creation from nothing, seems clear. And indeed, Pope Pius X11 said, in 1951, that:
However, get this: Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest and scientist, and the discoverer of the 'Big Bang' cosmology (although it wasn't called that at the time) 'was reportedly horrified by that intervention and was later able, with the assistance of Father Daniel O'Connell, the director of the Vatican Observatory, to convince the Pope not make any further public statements on religious or philosophical interpretations of matters concerning physical cosmology.' He felt it was wrong to try and support the articles of faith with reference to science (and vice versa). Wikipedia
I can’t fault your reasoning, but to get past this point there are a couple of things worth contemplating.
First the idea of transcendence, that one reality can be influenced by another of another order. Say a person can be affected by a divine being. The important thing here is that the two beings are in totally different, or separate arenas of existence. Meaning that something of a purely divine world can influence, or access something in a purely physical world. With no causal link as such, but some inherent propensity for contact to be made. An analogy might be a wormhole in space.
Secondly that the divine creator is external to time and space, so talking of forever, or something coming from nothing, or infinite regress don’t answer anything. They only introduce constraints and to get past these constraints one needs to have a way of thinking about an entity external to time and space, our time and space. While occupying its own kind of time and space independent from ours. A good way to imagine this is to think of a divine creator creating universes like a seed, or egg. So in the creators world you might have a packet of seeds, or eggs. But from our perspective, from inside the seed, or egg, all we see and know is an entire universe within that seed, or egg and we can’t see, or envisage anything beyond it.
What this way of thinking allows is for a more subtle way of thinking, in which the normal rational constraints can be put to one side and a more transcendent way of thinking about things can be developed.
The Bible claims to have solved the mystery of existence in the myth of Genesis, along with direct revelations to humans over the subsequent centuries. And mystics claim to "know" that supernatural being personally. Yet, I don't accept the authority of the Catholic Bible, compiled 3 centuries after the death of Jesus. So, the ultimate Cause of the eventual emergence of Intelligence remains an "ontological mystery" to me. But I have my philosophical theories. :smile:
My argument is for the existence of something rather than nothing. Which is a brute fact, in that no leaps would have to be made for something spontaneously appearing if we posit that something has always been and is eternal by nature.
On the other hand you have to scientifically or metaphysically demonstrate how something can come from nothing … which to me seems impossible.
Yet the argument goes like this: creation ex nihilo would imply the existence of god which is something so it creation did not really come from nothing… unless I’ve misunderstood your argument of creation ex nihilo.
Prior to the big bang there must have been something which transformed into the big bang else there would have been no time space or matter. To posit that there was nothing before the big bang is to be faced with the question of where did this matter come from …
Two options answer this question … nothing or something. But as the Greeks correctly noted nothing comes from nothing then there must have been something. This something cannot be other than it has always been. So in this respect creation ex nihilo does not make sense as it must have been caused by something which itself has no cause for its existence, having always existed.
Yes the realm of where divinity resides in terms of laws of physics, time and space could be different from our realm of physical existence. It could be that it exists on a non-linear frame where causality is not the same as ours. It could also be that it’s both transcendent and immanent having the ability to affect this physical universe including the emergence of life without affecting the non goal nature of evolution itself but providing the initial spark for life to form.
Sure I would be interested to hear how and why the eventual emergence of intelligence occurred.
If you are really interested in an amateur philosopher's opinion of the natural evolutionary emergence of Life & Mind, you could start with the original Enformationism Thesis. However, the Introduction to Enformationism blog post*1 might get you up to speed quicker, with somewhat less technical stuff. It's based on Quantum Physics and Information Theory, but from a philosophical perspective, which does not accept ancient Materialism as a modern post-quantum worldview.
Yet, it does apply Plato's ancient notion of Form as a precursor of the 21st century understanding of both Energy and Information*2. Also, it takes, as an axiom, that Aristotle's hypothetical First Cause initiated the Big Bang, with its otherwise inexplicable cosmic scale Energy (exceptionally low Entropy*3) and Natural Laws (limitations on the application of energy).
Be warned though, "The Enformationism thesis alone will not solve all the conundrums and contradictions of modern Science. But it may point in a new direction, toward a future solution". If, after 5 pages, you are mystified*4 by the unfamiliar theoretical & empirical concepts, please click on the last page popup : Abstract of the Enformationism Thesis. :smile:
*1. Introduction to Enformationism
From Form to Energy to Matter to Mind to Self
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html
*2. I emphasize the term “Information” in order to show that ultimately, Mind consists of essentially the same kind of stuff as Matter. Therefore, it should no longer be considered a mystery or miracle that consciousness could arise from material substrates.
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page81.html
Note --- That "stuff" is not tangible Matter, but invisible Energy as indicated by Einstein's equation :
[E=MC^2] where M is a mathematical measure of Mass (inertia), and C is the speed of light. The combination of M & C is what we call Matter : a slowed-down & condensed form of Energy.
*3. The universe began with exceptionally low entropy because matter was distributed with extreme uniformity, allowing for massive future increases in gravitational clumping (forming stars and black holes). This initial, highly ordered "smooth" state is considered an exceptionally rare starting condition, likely linked to rapid post-Big Bang expansion or, according to some theories, the result of pinching off from a larger, higher-entropy parent universe.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=why+did+the+universe+start+with+low+entropy&zx=1771188297986&no_sw_cr=1
Note --- The notion of a "parent universe" (eternal multiverse) is not based on evidence, but on a desire to defend Materialism, and to avoid any supernatural implications.
*4.Since this an amateur philosophical thesis, it’s not censored by academic oversight, or professionally committed to current mainstream dogmas of modern Science. So, it freely adopts some metaphysical ideas that may sound like Eastern or New Age Mysticism. For the record though, the thesis does not espouse any Magical or Psychic phenomena.
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page85.html
Note --- Metaphysics is the study of non-physical aspects of reality, such as Ideas & Theories. Brains are physical, but Minds are meta-physical.
Quoting Wayfarer
Intelligence has an origin -- it did not exist before RNA and proto-life. I think the disagreement would be over our attitude towards intelligence itself. We judge it emotionally, I guess. So that only mammals, for example, are awarded this name.
On the other hand, just because a molecule had developed a self-replicating property, it doesn't mean it is intelligent. Molecules can evolve and react according to the condition of their surrounding, but this is also not intelligence.
Molecules don't do that - organisms do that. Molecules are acted upon by external factors. But organisms react, adapt, maintain themselves and evolve. That's what makes them organic, as distinct from simply molecular.
Of course, the existence of DNA or something like it is, is required for that to happen. Quite how DNA appeared - not evolved, because evolution can't get started without it - is still and may forever be a mystery.
There is a trend in current biology to attribute forms of intelligence and/or agency to the cellular level of organic life. In other words, not only organisms, but also cells, seem able to act intentionally in pursuit of aims. A current article in New Scientist says:
This makes me wonder if intelligence is not only the product of the brains of the higher animals, but might also be in some sense a causal factor in evolution. As the same article goes on to say:
The question is: what agent (queue spooky music) :yikes:
Yes, I would go further though, in that the physical world is not real, in the sense that it is an artificial construct. It is real to us, because we are part of it, immersed in it. But in terms of existence and the profound philosophical questions about existence, the physical world does not make sense. It brings up and presents paradoxical inconsistencies. In order to overcome these inconsistencies it may be necessary to consider the divine realm, how it doesn’t fall into the same inconsistencies and how it interacts with and sustains the artificial world we find ourselves in.
Now consider nothing, rather than something. In our world, the question has already been answered and the answer is there is something, so there cannot be nothing. But it might not be that simple, this might be just another inconsistency. For example, if the reality is infinite, then maybe there is a nothing, an infinite distance away. Rather in the divine realm there might be something and nothing together, in fact a thing that is neither something, or nothing, a nothingsomething thing. If you think about it, both nothing and something require a ground, or something else by which to be defined as nothing (something that it is not), or something, that it is. Surely we should consider things that don’t have grounds, they are self sustaining, self perpetuating. So in a sense, they define their own parameters. They define their thing, of which they are some. They define their lack of thing, or nothing, of which they are not.
First, not something coming from nothing, something which wasn't there, then is. Untreated without cause. What created something which has always existed? Nothing. It's untreated without cause. Which means what I am positing is just as likely and scientifically proven as your idea.
If something has always existed then by definition it’s uncreated. By being uncaused by something else for it to be. This way we don’t just sidestep the issue of something from nothing but deal with it face on.
We cannot ask what created something that has always existed as it has no origin for which to ask about. If something’s always existed then it didn’t need creating.
Nothing on the other hand is impossible to exist on its own without being considered in relation to all that exists. Since there’s something rather than nothing, nothing is impossible to exist if that makes sense.
I’m arguing that in order for such an intelligence to emerge there must have been a prior intelligence which provided the spark of subsequent life/intelligence to occur. Without this life matter would have continued to be inanimate and never really become alive.
So the origin of current life and intelligence must have had a prior intelligent cause. Perhaps either in the shape of a divine
Force, god or even the universe itself possessing some form of intelligent predisposition.
If something exists and nothing too then it’s still something combined with nothing.
Pure nothingness as you pointed out would mean the total absence of something or anything. So even on the divine realm would not exist otherwise the divine realm would be nothingness.
If I understand correctly you’re saying that information is the fundamental aspect of reality. Yet this faces an issue of where and how this information be stored in a universe devoid of material or even energy. If you are claiming that it is more fundamental than energy/matter then you must provide ontological grounds for its existence. As far as I understand information must be stored in a medium such as matter or energy. If energy is fundamental and prior to matter/energy then what is it and how can it be stored in a non physical medium, especially if information gave rise to matter/energy in terms of potential.
Misquoting Gandhi and Grinspoon, I think it would be a good idea.
I'm not the one saying that Information is fundamental. It's the scientists I quote that say it. You can read their books to get the details. For example, MIT professor Seth Lloyd : Programming the Universe, The Information Edge: Creation and Destruction in Life.
Metaphysical Information doesn't exist in the same sense that Matter does. So the only "Ontological Grounds" for its existence are rational. Quantum information scientist, Seth Lloyd, doesn't have a laboratory with spectrometers & patch-clamp amplifiers. His lab is more like a think tank.
Your question about how information is stored seems to assume it's a material substance. But it's more like mathematics. Can you store Math in a box or bottle? Seth Lloyd has concluded that the Universe is a Quantum Computer*2. Do you know how information is stored in a physical computer or the human brain? It's stored as ratios between 1 & 0, or as differences (yes/no) and represented in computers by positive or negative electrical voltages. Energy can be stored in a physical medium, but Information is more fundamental (essential) than that. It can be stored in a Mind as an idea or memory. :smile:
*1. Information is increasingly considered a fundamental, nonmaterial entity—sometimes termed the "ontological basement" of reality — comparable to matter and energy. It is defined as the basic, underlying structure (or bits) that defines the state of a system, suggests that the universe functions as a processor of information, and may even explain phenomena like dark matter and energy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+is+fundamental
*2. The universe can be modeled as a giant quantum computer, wherein every particle interaction, from fundamental particle collisions to cosmological evolution, acts as a calculation, processing information rather than just exchanging energy. This computational, digital-physical approach suggests that physical laws act as the code and the universe is constantly updating its own state.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=universe+as+quantum+computer
Then how can the non-material (information) give rise to the material ? Are you saying that it doesn’t and all we are is information tricked into believing that we are physical ?
That is the question that my thesis attempts to answer*1. Yet it goes on to describe how the power to enform can evolve the Mental aspects of the Material world. The form of Information that I call EnFormAction is best known as Causal Energy, but it also gives rise to malleable Matter*2, and to intelligent Mind : a biological-based information processor.
However, I'm not a scientist, just an amateur philosopher. So, I have no credentials or authority to sway you. You'll have to connect the dots for yourself. Do you have the interest or patience to scan a 5 page summary? If you are confused by quirky Quantum physics, and post-Shannon Information theory, the reasoning & references may be difficult to follow.
Some people have concluded that Reality is indeed an Illusion. But I prefer to say that your Reality is an interpretation of physical evidence : a mental model. Some interpret their experience of the world in terms of Physicalism/Materialism, while others base their world-model on Spiritualism. I have built my model on the theory of Enformationism*1 : Information (power to create intelligible forms) is fundamental to reality. What are the implications of that notion for our modern understanding of the world? :nerd:
*1. Introduction to Enformationism
From Form to Energy to Matter to Mind to Self
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html
*2. Energy gives rise to matter primarily through the conversion of high-intensity energy (such as photons or kinetic energy) into mass, as described by Albert Einstein’s equation. When immense energy is concentrated into a tiny volume, it can solidify into particle-antiparticle pairs (like electrons and positrons), a process observed in particle accelerators and high-energy collisions.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=how+does+energy+give+rise+to+matter
So you haven't heard about molecular evolution?
Notice that it assumes the existence of DNA and RNA, and therefore organisms. It's not a theory of how DNA came into existence nor is it a theory of organic chemistry.
Eerrgh, DNA and RNA are molecules.
This doesn’t solve the problem, for us mortals and it doesn’t answer anything about the divine realm either. For us mortals, we have proof that there is something, so the question is already answered, that there is not nothing. There is only something. But this is surrounded with the paradoxical inconsistencies that I referred to earlier. Such as, it’s logically possible for there to be nothing, but just not at the same [I]time[/I] as something. So they can’t exist, or not exist simultaneously. But if there is something, how did it come to be? And that there is not nothing? Which suggests that there is a problem is in our thinking, rather than in reality.
We can’t conclude this, because as I say above, there seems to be a problem in our thinking rather than in the divine world. We can’t say anything, other than that there is something and the divine world is a sensible cause of it’s existence. Even if it seems to be illogical.
And if something was not created also has no origin. It simply is explained by the fact it exists. It's not different at all.
Quoting kindred
There is plenty of nothing. It's simply the absence of something. You haven't quite yet presented a reason why something always existing is somehow more plausible than something simply forming existing without prior explanation. They are still at their core have the same unprovable base.
Again, Im not countering your plausibilty that something has always existed. But you cannot discount the plausibility that something exists without prior cause and hold onto an eternal existence while discounting a non-eternal one.
Whether the force of life is divine or not seems to be a matter of personal perspective. I think that decision has a lot to do with feeling. If we feel loved by God, God is divine, just as a boyfriend is divine, and love actually makes us healthier and happier. However, if we do not have that feeling, then why would we believe He is divine?