No I have not. My evidence necessarily has had to change from objective to subjective logical evidence.

If you are asking for objective evidence for this subject you are asking for the impossible, because it is beyond the veil of what we can actually observe. Therefore you have to use logic beginning with what we know.


We know that intelligent exits.
We know that it appears to grow or expand or whatever you want to call it.
In order to grow it is logical that it must first exist.
If it does not exist, then at some point it must emerge from a point of non existence to existence.

If that is the case, then there must be a formula that provides for intelligence to be created.

If that is not the case then all things logically already have a degree of intelligence.

One or the other, take your pick.

The claim is that zero does not exist. I stand by that claim.
It represents NOTHING.

Yes, I completely discount the possibility that non-intelligence can grow into intelligence. Are you making the claim that it can? If you are then please enlighten me and tell me how you support that claim.




I agree that we cannot "see" that point, but by logic, it does exist. Are you suggesting that it does not? If so, what is your logical argument for that? non-intelligence is suddenly intelligent. How did that happen? Gradually? How? How does a quanta of intelligence first pop into existence .. gradually.

(It is a boundary. You don't "gradually" enter Old Mexico from the United states. You cross the boundary and you are there.)



An attribute maybe. The ability to function.

Energy and Information functioning together = intelligence. Even if it is just a quanta of intelligence.

,or maybe its a combination of things that allow for its existence..like water..it doesn't exist until the right elements are brought together in order to create it.. jmo

That was the other choice.

Either it already exists in all things, or it is the result of a formula or formulas that come together in order to create intelligence.


But even that is subject to the question of how much intelligence each element has because each element must have its own encoding and energy in order to interact with the other element, which has its own quantum intelligence.

And yes, this is a broad interpretation for the term "intelligence." Some things have a lot, other things almost none. Break it down into quanta. Imagine the smallest amount of information and the smallest amount of energy that has a single function to perform.

No that is not correct.

My definition of intelligence is INFORMATION AND ENERGY that together performs a function.

Oh, yeah, thats right. "Subjective logical evidence". I asked you if you coined the terms yourself. Have you?



"Therefore". This is a term commonly used with logical progressions.



Oh, no thank you. I choose reason over the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses.

I know your reading comprehension skills are better than that.




By 'logic', eh? Some people take logic very seriously.



You say that it is quantized.



You say that it is a boundary.

I say that this conversation hasn't even reached a minimum level of sense-through-meaningful-definitions - but that hasn't stopped false logic from being used.

Which is no crime - we use false logic all the time in our conversations. I object when people give 'logic' as their means of evidence while doing so.

Yeah, and you don't explain much about 'function'; and of course, any arrangement of matter can be said to be a form of information, so I have no idea why you are disagreeing with me. This is pretty close to being just a word for matter and energy.

JB,

You commented in a way that suggests I'm here to 'cast doubt' on your conclusions, as if this were a negative, non-constructive thing. And you seem pre-occupied with my lack of positive assertions.

You have some interesting ideas, and you keep inviting me to discuss them in a broader sense. So let me be clear - the majority of my comments in this thread are motivated by the fact that you repeatedly apply the word 'logic' to sequences of statements which are not logical progressions. You use the word logic while presenting arguments which are not logical proofs.

If you did not repeatedly use the word 'logic' in this way, I would have little negative to say about your conjectures. In fact, I'm interested in and pleased by your overall exploration of ideas.

I know you have repeatedly expressed a disinterest in reading about science - are you also disinterested in reading about logic?

If you want to claim to be using logic, and not have anyone criticize it, you might benefit from learning more about how logic is used. Or, you could simply be more judicious when it comes which claims you declare have been shown to be true by 'logic'.

I am correcting you because you misquoted me and probably misunderstand me. If I wanted to say matter and energy I would have said matter and energy.

Yes, matter has information and energy, but that is not how I am defining intelligence. Having it and using it are two different things, although they are both "functions."

Existence as "matter" is itself a function. It does not have to do anything. Doing something, like consuming energy (eating) and growing and reproducing is a different kind of function where intelligence becomes more apparent.

Oh MY GOD, Mass... -- YOUR SO PICKY ! ! !

Won't you give a lady some slack? ? ?

We aren't in an official educational establishment here, for god's sake!

"Quanta" is simply an imagined unit of measurement. It does not really exist. Earlier when attempting to explain that intelligence is relative and that everything has a degree of intelligence, I asked you to imagine, if you would, the smallest bit of intelligence you could, and call it a "quanta of intelligence."

So yes, I quantized it.

And NO I did not say it is a boundary, that was an illustration. Do you understand illustration? Example? Here are some examples: You are either in or out of the house. The light is either on or off. You either exist or you do not exist.

A quanta of intelligence either exists or it does not. What this means is that a thing like an enzyme might have a quanta (or more) of intelligence because it has information and energy and it uses that information and energy to do something. That something might be to reproduce or duplicate itself for the purpose of acquiring more energy and more information. That process causes growth. The function is to acquire more energy and information.

Jane, are you interested in truth?

I don't think my logic is false at all. My evidence is purely subjective.

What precisely about my logic is faulty?

I have to give logic as my means of evidence because we are in an area that stretches beyond objective science and objective evidence. If you don't want to go there what are you doing talking to me? If you are so well educated and you know so much more than me that it frustrates you, then why do you continue to waste your time?

.

Also, if you are so much more educated in logic and biology etc, why don't you have any answers that make logical sense? All you have suggested so far is that intelligence might emerge "gradually."I asked you how it did that and all you said is that I would not understand unless I took a course in biology.

Is there a formula or formulas that when mixed together creates energy and information that can function to create more energy and information?

The way I see it there are only two choices. Either intelligence exists in all things, in different degrees or it does not. If it does not, there must be a point where a non-intelligence thing gained or created a quanta of intelligence.

It is a very simple deduction, a child could understand it.

Exactly. Do you recognize that you have used 'false logic' in this thread?



This has nothing, directly, to do with whether you are using false logic.



Maybe tomorrow I will copy and paste and list the fallacies in your statements. It would be a good learning exercise for me, as I do not know the names of all the fallacies.



I have nothing against 'going there', that just not my purpose at this time.




You may not realize it, but when you say that this is 'true' by 'logic', while using invoking fallacies, then what you are doing - from my point of view - is a lie. I do not like to sit idly by when such things are happening. There are fools in the current events sections which do a lot of that, and I ignore them, but you are not a fool. You have shown yourself to be interested in the truth in the past. You have shown that you are in learning and re-examining your beliefs, so generally I think it is worth the effort to debate with you. Much of this thread has been an exception to that.



I do think that I am less inclined to pass of fallacy as proof. That is not because of any education, it is because I am more careful about reaching conclusions, a quality I learned as a child.




Are you getting a more clear picture about what it is that frustrates me? Its not our respective general knowledge, but the degree of care when claiming 'logic' shows something.



Okay, in those two areas, yes, I would agree as a relative statement that I am more educated, but thats not what this is about. What does it mean to be educated in logic? I know hardly any of the names for the fallacies, nor anything about the history behind our recognition of them. One doesn't need that to recognize them, though.

Seriously, there are children out there who have never heard of logical fallacy who can still recognize them.



Because an answer isn't necessary as a starting position. Being free from fallacies and presumption is necessary as a starting position.




And of that was only an incidental consequence of focusing attention on your fallacies. I don't care to advance the idea of gradual emergence. I wish to prevent fallacies being passed off as logic.



Not exactly, but its not a point worth debating.



There are formulas for insuring that ones thought process is truly logical. Maybe in the next few days we will look at those.

Notice that I do not claim my thought process is truly logical, nor do I suggest that everyone's ought to be, all the time.

But when they claim to be showing something is true, by pure logic, well under those circumstances I do think they ought to be carefully and truly logical.

JB,

In your 'model' there are differing degrees of intelligence in all things. How does a thing gain or lose a degree if it is not gradually? Are you saying that the level of intelligence changes or not?

Yes! The level of intelligence changes with growth and exchanges of energy and information.

My only point is very simple.

1.) Either a degree of intelligence (as I define it) exists in everything, no matter how small, OR NOT.

2.) IF NOT, then in order for intelligence to "emerge gradually" there MUST first be a point where a non-intelligent thing "crosses over" or "changes" or "suddenly becomes" intelligent.

(A miracle happens)

My position is #1 - that everything has a degree of intelligence. If a person does not agree with #1, then they must agree with # 2.

This is because in order for intelligence to GROW it must first be present or exist.

All this side stepping and procrastinating by massagetrade about my false logic is a meaningless dodge or else he does not understand what I am saying.

This concept is simple, clear, very cut and dried and completely logical.

I have not seen him come up with an alternative to either of these choices and I don't really care to get all involved in an argument about semantics or what he thinks is "false logic."



Intelligence as I define it:

INFORMATION AND ENERGY that together performs a function.

P.S.

If there is such a thing as a quanta of intelligence (the smallest imagined amount) one cannot gain that single quanta "gradually" it is gained suddenly as single unit.

If something with zero or no-intelligence is to gain a single quanta of intelligence by some miracle, that is the point I am talking about that must exist if choice #2 is what you subscribe to.

The gradual aspect of it is in gaining many quanta units of intelligence.

The more units of intelligence a thing has, the more functions it can perform, hence the more "intelligent" it is.

A little grist for the mill?

Google "John von Neumann Universal Constructor".

Keep in mind while reading about it that this 'program' has been running for billions of years.


-Kerry O.

P.S.
My claim does not conflict with evolution and scientific observation in the slightest.

Wow that is fascinating and.... very spooky. (In a "Rrise of the machines" way.)

I have read somewhere that one day there will be a technology that will be able to replicate a human being exactly.

I will call them "artificial humans."