And I'm already displeased with myself for putting time into this; I really think people should critique their own logic more thoroughly when seeking to set out proofs for something.

Well, I think the whole thing is based on a belief in premise #2.

So it truly must come down to whether or not you agree with any of the premises. If you disagree with premise #2 then the hypothesis then you must concede the truth of the overall conditional statement.

That's they way conditional statements work in logic.

It goes like this: If P then Q.

However, if you personally believe P to be false, then you must accept the overall statement must be logically true. That's just the way logic works.

At that point you'd just be in disagreement with the hypothesis P. But you can't very well argue with the overall logical statement in that case.

My understanding was that #2 was not intended as an a priori - it was considered to be 'proven' by the statement that followed the enumerated list.

I was exaggerating when I said "you HAVE TO IDENTIFY a point where a miracle happened and suddenly there was intelligence. It was for emphasis.

I think you get my drift.

1)intelligence exists
2)intelligence can't have come from no-intelligence
3)therefore everything that exists has a degree of intelligence.

But

If intelligence CAN arise from no-intelligence THEN
you have to conclude that there is a point in this process at which intelligence suddenly appeared or happened.

(Not a point in "time.)

(And THAT in my opinion is a miracle that equals something from nothing.)

What do you think is wrong specifically with my logic?

You probably could imagine a lot of different alternatives if you had the time and the imagination. I was simply giving an example of HOW I draw conclusions through observation. I tend to choose the most obvious one. If another is provided or becomes available I am more than happy to consider it. If you would provide another more logical and more compelling one I will consider it. But all you want to do is just cast your doubt on my conclusions by coming up with less compelling scenarios or possibilities that boarder on being ridiculous.

And for the record, I think I would know if someone was trying to kill me or shoot me. I would not spend one second of my time rationalizing what other reason he might have for chasing me and shooting at me.

JB, I find this a far more reasonable phrasing. However, I still don't think it necessary that there is a 'point' at which it 'suddenly' appeared - just as the line between not-bald and bald on the 'hairness' spectrum is not clear, unique, precise.

Whether it is a 'point', or a 'region': the question of 'where' that is would depend on the definition of intelligence... with the modified form of the definition you gave (MT0-intelligence) I'm comfortable just accepting that all matter and most energy 'has energy and information and interacts'.

Using different definitions of intelligence would yield different places on the process.

I already find this process laborious - do you want me to copy and paste the things I've already said? It seems you've already changed your approach somewhat based on the feedback.

The reason I resort to using logic for the solution to this problem because science is limited in that they can only begin with what they can actually see and observe or test. Anything beyond that is speculation.

So at that point they are at a dead end. The only way to go any further is with logic.

It seems to me there are two choices.

1)Either intelligence exists in all things in some degree and it becomes more apparent as energy and information is collected and changes occur,

2)or intelligence suddenly appears when you combine certain things and without this combination no intelligence can occur.

If # 1 is true then all things have a degree of intelligence which is exchanged, shared etc.

If #2 is true then there is a specific formula or formulas that when combined, creates intelligence (or life.)

If anyone has a third or fourth possibility, I am very interested.

Then if you are finding it laborious and you cannot answer the question, then stop expressing your frustrations upon me.

No, I can read your posts, and reposting them is of no use.

p.s. the bald hair analogy is pointless and does not apply here.

My logic is extremely simple and clear. Your understanding of "intelligence" as you experience probably bares no resemblance to the intelligence of an enzyme.

Intelligence:

It has information: (encoding etc.)
It has energy or movement:
It use both to do something.

That something is usually to gain or exchange energy and information.

I agree. I'd rather be alive and presumptive, then completely objective and dead.




Why not choose "I don't know" ?



Thats good, but I'm not sure you are considering it with an open mind.



For some of these questions, I believe that I could, but you would first have to learn some biology. You don't want to do that, so you turn your back on the ideas which require that knowledge. Thats your choice.



I admit I don't remember the whole conversation, but I think you might have this perception precisely because of your attachment to your conclusions.

This reminds me of the time that you criticized scientific types for not engaging in relaxed conjecture. You are not presenting conjecture as conjecture, you are presenting (what is claimed to be) logic as if it were logical proof.

This thread is full of your self-assuredness that your logic is sound, that your conclusion is 'true', and that me and scientists are simply blind to this truth.

Or so it seems. But is it correct?


It is often exactly when people think their logic is too simple and clear to be mistaken, that they are wrong.

Yet it follows the same structure as your statements, presented as logic. It also serves as a counter-example to the notion that there must be 'one point'.

Exactly!



Some might say that one can go forward with prayer.

As far as going forward 'with logic' - are you sure that one can, though? Perhaps there is no way to go farther. Perhaps no matter what, it will always be speculation.



You often say that you are interested in learning, but have you learned from the 'baldness' example? There is already a third possibility given in this thread:

3) intelligence gradually appears ....



Otherwise, you will proceed with certainty that all all the bases are covered?

Design for the most part means intention.

There is no intention in nature. It is a mixture of "changing to get the advantage in life" type activity.

Now accidental design does happen in nature. But there is no intention there.

I agree that intelligence forms over time with the right circumstances requiring/furthering intelligence.

Not logical. It can't "gradually appear." It is either there or it isn't. It may be so very small that it is not apparent, but it can't grow gradually unless it exists. If it does not exist, then there has to be a point between it existing and it not existing. A birth of some kind.

Before I can make any sense at all of these statements I have to know what you mean by "nature."

I don't know, but until then I will draw temporary conclusions.