Without life there is no intelligence.

Life creates intelligence.

Intelligence is non existent without life.

Design is non existent without a mind to comprehend it.

So without life and a mind there is no intelligent design so intelligent design is a concept from a human mind, a live human mind...lol

Your first statement is an assumption or an opinion.
Your second statement names the designer of intelligence "Life."
Your third statement assumes that intelligence requires a living body and that it arises from that body.
Your last statement assumes that "a mind" arises from a living body and not the other way around.

I disagree on all points. However your argument is not following the premise of this thread or my definition of intelligence so there is no point in my engaging your opinions further. There is no debate because we are not using the same premise.

We just disagree. I acknowledge your opinion.

LOL, nice try. I too acknowledge your opinions on the whole thread.

I think I better answer this in parts – very long.

Di wrote:


JB:


Life is a word we use abstractly in order to categorize the difference between things to which we attribute certain characteristic and things that do not have those characteristics.

Life, as we understand it, did not ‘create’ intelligence. Intelligence occurred or perhaps emerged through the processes which brought ‘life’ into being.

Di wrote:


JB:


Sometimes its difficult to define a word for an abstract concept without using the word, or some derivative of it, and you're right I failed miserably….

Di wrote:


JB:


Try defining spherical without using the word sphere!!!



While it can be difficult to ‘define’ a word without using a derivative of the word we should be able to attribute characteristic to something without using the thing in reference to itself.

Maybe we could both agree that the nature of a circle is to be round, at least within our dimension.

JB:


So are you saying that things have a ‘nature’? Possibly that the things occur ‘naturally’? And you made me make-up that terrible definition!!!

Di wrote:


JB:


Yea – back to “my analogies sucked” – hell I don’t even “get it” from what I was saying. Let me try another approach.

Natural (as in naturally occurring or naturally so)
Categorizing things by assigned properties and attributes is possible because under ordinary circumstances the properties and attributes of a thing develop/occur with few variations. In other words, predictable patterns occur ordinarily within the universe.

In the ordinary we find ‘naturally’ occurring patterns to which we can assign properties and attributes. The nature of a photon is both particle and wave – this is ordinarily so, and is then (at least in part) its nature.

Does that make any more sense? DOES IT – don’t make me do this over it hurts my brain.

Di wrote:


JB:


OH STOP - I said I screwed up.

But I do want to question you about your response. Thinking about your analogy of “To think...” do you believe that intelligence is required for thinking? What else would be required for thinking - data maybe?

I’m asking because of your previous references to “encoded” intelligence – that which I called ‘artificial intelligence’ based upon its very limited capacity.

So are you equating the ‘natural’ tendency of a particular group of atoms under ordinary circumstances to have intelligence or does the way in which the atom acts occur based on certain patterned processes which have ‘developed’ through a whole other set of ‘naturally’ occurring processes?

PART 2 OF 3

Di wrote:


JB


Actually nature is ordinary and no I don’t think birth is a miracle. Miracles are not ordinary, have no repeatable patterns, and no predictability, a fact which renders them unverifiable.

Di Wrote:


JB:


Yep sounds like Jenniebean logic to me. Which actually doesn’t sound much better than my funky analogies above.

So we don’t create a new life – we are not pro-creational? OH MY GOSH it is a miracle!

Anyway, what you seem to be saying is that creating something not takes no thought but no determined or directed action either. It is simply the byproduct of a disturbance.

But to design is the capacity to consciously (thoughtfully=intelligence beyond artificial or encoded), plan and then create (*sic) a product which represents the plan.

Since creation has been shown to be a product of thoughtless and indetermanent action, I think we need to change the word the end of the sentence to …then make the product which represents the plan.

But when we make something, we are simply combining, rearranging, or otherwise altering pre-existent materials to meet the requirements of the design.

So by your definitions there is an artist manipulating a pre-existent universe according to the aesthetic plan of its own design.

AH BUT THEN you go and use that word again --- NATURAL.
And in your very own words I will reply:



You said it – but why – when you continue to use it to back up your own views?

Part 3 - finale

Di said:


JB:


Actually it sounds like creation – that is – according to your very definition above.

JB:


YES – offspring are the product of naturally occurring processes – but if the processes are naturally occurring then it took no intelligence for the processes to take place.

Instinct and autonomic responses are mechanisms – there are no thought processes which take place in the mechanism. It responds to certain stimuli because it is its nature to act in that manner. If you walk under a sensor and an alarm goes off – it is because the ‘mechanism’ sensed the presence of something it was programmed to respond to. It was not thinking, it is not intelligent.

JB:


If there is intelligence guiding every atom in the universe – the intelligence is not coming from inside the atom – the atom is merely the aesthetic design of some artist you think made the universe.

So the way I understand it - energy either has no intelligence or it has no data (information) because it takes both energy and information to perform a function.

Can energy perform a function if it is not intelligent or does it just ‘create’ a disturbance? Can intelligence exist if there is NO THING(s) with which to interact, providing information?

Let me ask you then - what is it SPECIFICALLY that you would have scietists doing? As a scientist you can't simply ask "what started it all" you have to be a lot more specific in order to formulate a hypothesis.

Tell me this - What is the question to be asked which will yield the ultimate answer and what effect would you expect that answer to have on your life or on humanity?

Personally, I think there's a lot more to be gained from the search than there is to be gained from the one ultimate answer.

In fact, if we had that one ultimate answer, I doubt it would mean anything because unless we know how to arrive at that answer, we still don't know how everything actually works to get that answer...

JB - Creative was responding in the context of your words.

>>>"QUOTE:
If I see a painting I know that it is a design without having to resort to identifying the designer, his reason, purpose or intent.

So by logical conclusion, (or common sense if you don't like me using the term "logic,")I have decided that there must be some method to determine a design without doing these things.<<<

In that quote you have labeled the painting a design and you have also defined 'design' as being the product of an intentional representation of a plan.

Yet you are arguing from a differnt frame of reference. You might want to review what Creative said, this time based on the statements you made which invoked his responce.

Actually that might be a clue.

IF I see a painting, HOW do I know it is a design without having to resort to identifying the designer, his reason, purpose or intent?

(I am asking myself this question.)

Here are some answers:

If the painting is a two dimensional representation of a three dimensional object I would conclude that it is a design and not just spilled paint on a canvas.

If the painting is a meticulous pattern with some outstanding features that deviate from that pattern, I might conclude that it is a design. There would also be evidence that the paint was applied with a brush or tool.

I would have to give this question more thought to come up with other reasons and evidence in the evaluation of a painting to determine if it is a design or not.

B:


Yes they go hand in hand according to my definition of intelligence. Thinking is the process of performing the function. but...

I suppose that might depend on how you define or interpret the word "thinking." The kind of intelligence I am speaking of is more like a process that does not require reflection. (to think about what you are thinking about.) It is simply like computer 'thinking' or processing. There are times when your computer just sits there, and there are times when it is grinding away in some process. That is when we say that it is 'thinking.'

Does is really "think?" On a one-dimensional level you could say it is thinking and according to my definition of intelligence it is 'intelligent' because it is performing a function with the use of energy and information. (The energy is the electricity, and the information is the programing.)

I am forced to use the term 'intelligence' for lack of a better word. This is also called "artificial intelligence." But this artificial intelligence is a low level kind of artificial intelligence. The more functions and information the computer is given the more intelligent it is or appears to be.




Your term "limited capacity" is what I meant by "one dimensional" intelligence. It means "a very small amount of intelligence." In past threads I also quantified intelligence. One quanta of intelligence is a very small amount.

The reason for very small amounts of intelligence is because at the micro level 'things' may not have a lot of intelligence. This stems from my idea that everything has intelligence 'to some degree.'



I am using the term "intelligence" for lack of a better term and defining it for this purpose as energy and information that together performs a function. Note* (At the micro level it may be difficult to separate energy from matter so it is unknown if intelligence requires a material body to operate.) An example might be a particle which cannot be determined to be 'matter' so it might simply be energy. At this point it appears as a wave or a particle but the particle itself cannot be measured or observed as a 'thing.'

To get back to your question, what you call a 'naturally occurring process above is what I am calling the function of intelligence.
(energy and information performing a function is what we observe as a naturally occurring process.)

If energy and information did not perform any functions, there would not be any so-called "naturally occurring processes."

Therefore by this definition, a 'naturally occurring process' is evidence of intelligence. Intelligence being: "energy and information that together performs a function."

I think that where sex and reproduction are concerned it does not take 'conscious' thought or direction. It is an automatic "naturally occurring" process. I will explain later why I use the term "naturally occurring" but from my last post I think you have my definition of that.




If I use the word it is because I have defined it. Most people use the word as an answer but they don't really know what it means, hence I cannot know what they mean, because they don't know what they mean.

Energy and information performing a function is what we observe (and call) a naturally occurring process. Therefore naturally occurring processes are evidence of intelligence, (energy and information performing a function.) They are essentially the same thing except that the function is the product and the process of performing the function is the thought or intelligence at work.

I have not yet gotten into the ingredient we call "consciousness." That is where 'thinking' becomes more reflective and awareness of the occurring processes of thinking makes its appearance.

Some have told me that what I am speaking of are simply "the laws of physics." But what are the laws of physics? They are just observations of "naturally occurring processes."

And what are "naturally occurring processes?

I am suggesting that they are the functions performed by or with intelligence; which is energy and information used together to perform said function. Therefore, "naturally occurring processes" is the evidence for intelligence.

According to my definition of "intelligence" the above statement is not true.

The "thought processes" which take place in the "mechanism" is "energy and information being used to perform a function; which is what I have defined as "intelligence."

What I will agree is that there may be no "conscious" thought processes taking place in the mechanism.

Your answer that it responds to certain stimuli because it is "its nature" to act in that manner is a non-answer because you do not know (or agree) nor have you defined what "nature" is or what causes that to be "its nature."

Your example of walking under a sensor and an alarm going off because the mechanism sensed the presence of something:

The sensor does have intelligence according to my definition of intelligence. (It is 'artificial intelligence' because it was designed by a human and man made.) Its intelligent function is not much, but it is intelligence just the same. It has a degree of artificial intelligence. It responded because it was programed. It's programming is the 'information' and the battery or electricity is its energy. Together they perform a function. It receives a signal and responds automatically -- as programed to do so.

There is also another intelligence behind that sensor. That would be the human's intelligence, the one who designed and programed it. Therefore, the presence and operation of the sensor itself is evidence of a superior intelligence (the human) because it took someone intelligent to design it and program it.

If you were exploring another planet and the first thing you discovered was a sensor that detected your presence and set off an alarm, you would probably consider that to be evidence of a superior intelligence present on that planet, the one who designed and programed the sensor.



It takes both energy and information to perform a function. At the micro level of atoms and particles it is not clear if they are energy or 'things.' (matter) Therefore it is unknown if intelligence requires a material body.

I personally believe that intelligence does not require a body to perform a function because I believe that a particle is not a material thing.

Energy cannot perform a function unless it has information. If energy has information, it has the potential to perform a function. Even the potential to perform a function qualifies as 'intelligence.'

As far as the "inside" and "outside" question, that is a whole other topic of discussion about dimensions of existence. When you begin to talk about inside and outside, up and down, left and right in a multidimensional universe, that might require a new thread.

I personally think that the intelligence can very possibly come from "inside" the atom or particle or that the particle is like a vortex or door to another dimension. But energy and information is also collected from outside the 'thing.'

Languages:

In a computer the languages used to 'talk' to a computer start with zeros and ones. In fact it starts with a zero and a one.

The energy (or power) is either on or off.

If it is off, a pathway is blocked, if it is on, a pathway is unblocked. If a pathway is unblocked, energy can flow through the pathway.

A step up from zero and one is a series of zeros and ones made to represent the alphabet and maybe other things. This is a binary code.

The first computers could only be programed with this binary code.

This is the bottom level of computer language. Following that are other machine languages of all levels up to the ones we have today and today there are some computers that can hear you talk and type what you say or can read to you aloud something you typed. Voices for reading are programs and there are different voices you can purchase and use, some even have certain accents.

We have come a long way with artificial intelligence of all levels.

Still, a computer is not thought of as being conscious or alive or self aware. There may come a point in their development where a computer can appear to be self aware and conscious or alive, but when that point comes, we may not be able to tell the difference. So what do we do? How do we decide if a thing is alive or just programed to appear alive?

I think that breathing might have something to do with it. Breathing and self maintenance, self repair, growth, independent thought, and creativity might be evidence. Does the machine still need human maintenance to survive? It's probably not alive if it does. So at the point where a machine or computer becomes alive we better hope that it wants to be our friend. LOL

If anyone does not agree with my basic definition of the "raw" beginnings of "intelligence" I am open for suggestions of a word to describe what I define as intelligence. Which is:

"Energy and information which together performs a function, or is used to perform a function."

And the question might be posed IF energy and information is used to perform a function, then WHAT exactly is using it? A body?

If your answer is a body, then shouldn't this body have a brain? (But not all bodies have what we identify as "brains.")

(So perhaps at lower levels of intelligence brains are not necessary to perform functions. All that is necessary is energy and information.)

Another question I have asked myself is, "Can energy exist separate from information? If energy can exist separate from information then how can it function as energy?

The information inside of a computer's hard drive can exist without the energy the computer uses to access and use it. The energy that is used to run the computer exists, but does it perform a function? If it does, then could it be considered 'raw' intelligence?

Ummm.. no.

Just because there is information and energy , they cannot perform any action.

Intelligence is trait, describing turning meaningless into meaningful or causing a change or just a voluntary act, that is done for a specific purpose.

Also, you cannot have information available in raw format. There is data first, which has to be turned into information. Information is a processed product - by intellgience - .

Only various entities possessing intelligence can turn raw data into information and only intelligent beings with the trait "intelligence" can decode it or understand it.

Intelligence varies, there can be less or more.

Example:

An ant. It has an intelligence enough to survive and live. But a book is meaningless to him, because he does not possess the necessary intelligence to decode the letters as sounds and give a meaning to it.



You have already derailed yourself with your definition of intelligence, that happens often, when various people start out from the wrong formula or the wrong definition in the core of the subject and they build on it and later surprised, that they can't come to a conclusion.

Have you read this entire thread?

I have JB, and I am retiring from it.

Atlantis75:


And you know this how?



Why not? What do you have to support that statement in bold above?





Intelligence does vary. My definition of intelligence is based on that premise. (That intelligence comes in degrees, and varies.)

I propose that everything has a degree of intelligence, even the smallest thing.

Thus the reason it has been stripped to its raw quantum unit and defined (by me for this purpose) as energy and information that together performs, or is used to perform, a function.

Your examples don't apply because you have traveled from the micro quantum world to the complex macro world where the language of intelligence has changed massively, and your definition does not agree with the premise I am proposing for the first "emergence" or the first quanta of intelligence that ever existed, if indeed there are 'things' that have 'zero' intelligence.

You will probably say that intelligence arises from bodies gradually. I have been through that argument. The question I would ask next is if that is the case, at what point does a thing go from having no intelligence to suddenly having a single quantum unit of intelligence? You either have it or you do not have it.

If you want to understand where I am coming from and where I am going you might want to read more of the thread. I am going down a particular road with a particular premise and I don't want to get onto your road.

Thanks for your input.

Well at this point I may as well retire also. You (and maybe Di) are the only people who have attempted to comprehend what I am saying and respond with questions and input that makes me think.