JB,

I am thinking that the definition for the term intelligence that you're proposing has no ability to make a true distinction bewteen 'higher' and 'lower' forms/amounts/measures. You said that the level changes with the amount of information and/or energy exchange. That cannot be true, because it goes against too many known observations.

I think that your definition of intelligence needs some work before this is pursued any further. I realize that it may be a popular opinion of some that one can come up with an arbitrary definition and still give a meaningful argument. That is just not the case though. One can create one's own definition for *anything* and give a valid argument from that premise, but that alone does not equate to being meaningful.

I also see some of the issues which I believe that massage was referring to, but please... trust me when I say that massage was not attempting to belittle you. I would go out on a proverbial limb to support that personal belief of mine. While I do not make it a habit to speak for another, I think it is safe to say that massage was simply having a hard time following your given parameters not because it was not understood, but because it was.

there is no evidence.....just reflections of what people want to see as evidence, or lack of, according to there own belief system that was taught to them by thier parents...

On a side note...

Dragoness has been striking the nail dead on the head concerning what is commonly referred to as the problem of infinite regress which is inherent in all creationism arguments('God' arguments). What she said is valid, either something always existed or something had to come from nothing. Either way, we do not know enough to be able to conclude.

Another thing more on topic...

Design requires intent and reason. All known design shares those two things. Therefore, there is no logical reason to believe otherwise. Those both require prior intelligence. Therefore, when one is looking for evidence to support the notion of a designed universe, that alone requires the conclusion of an intelligent designer because it presupposes it in the premise.

a simple everyday phrase sums it all up....
S#!T HAPPENS

I gave it some thought and I did see the flaw in my logic in the beginning and that is why I restated it later.

As far as the definition for intelligence, I realize it is not what we normally think of as intelligence at our own personal level of awareness and intelligence, but if you are going to look at the mirco quantum world of tiny things like elements you need to redefine intelligence at that level.

That is what I did or attempted to do. Otherwise, you then have to find a line or a dividing point between what we think intelligence is and what it is not. Some people would draw that line between humans and animals. I don't. I wanted to define it in its smallest and most raw state. That is why I quantified it.

I agree that there are higher and lower forms of intelligence and there are probably many many levels.

I also don't expect that all aspects of the model I propose can be observed. BUT I do have solutions to that also, however they are not something that I have objective evidence for and I have not worked out any subjective logic to explain them yet. But it does involve the exchange of energy and information from one species to another which transfers intelligence.

I know what you believe and it is just your opinion, no better or smarter than mine.

At least the deductions can be made on my "logic"

There is none for yours.

Things just don't "exist" with no origin.

Intelligence is a result of life evolving, that is all it is. It is not an entity to itself and it did not just appear out of the blue.

It came from nothing as everything did.

Prove everything didn't come from nothing.

Better yet prove nothing doesn't exist.

I do not agree that it is valid to think that something had to come from nothing, simply because nothing does not exist and cannot exist in the presence of something.

These two conditions cannot simultaneously be present or occur. That is just common sense.

Therefore it follows that something always existed.

And that is just as hard to comprehend as something coming from nothing, but it seems to me to be the only possible condition that could exist given that something exists NOW. (Which is the evidence that nothing cannot exist in the presence of something.)

We are living in a finite universe and our minds are geared and programed to understand beginnings and endings. That is why we lean towards thinking that something must have come from nothing and that everything must have a beginning and an ending.

Both concepts are very hard to comprehend.






Conclusions are never 'required.' They can be considered or assumed temporarily in order to move forward in the search for truth and connecting evidence to a theory.

When investigating a crime, you might have a suspect that you think is the murderer but you need to look for something you can use as evidence that connects him to the crime. You might even have two or three suspects. The point is, you have not made any presupposed conclusions. A suspect is just a suspect until you can prove to yourself and others that you have evidence that convinces you and them that he is the one who did the crime.

I don't have to. It is blatantly obvious that it does not exist.

IT IS NOTHING.

Things cannot arise or come from something that does not exist.

Not to be offensive, but what flaw are you referring to?



Before redefining intelligence at that level, should it not be first proven to exist at that level?



Calling it quantified is not the same as quantifying it. I do not know very many people who draw a line between animals and humans which equates to a clear line between intelligence and no intelligence. There are proven significant differences in cognitive abilities which are measurable or at least observable. I believe that all intelligence necessarily requires inference and volition, for if a thing cannot contemplate future outcomes of consciously chosen actions, what is there that would warrant the label? That necessarily requires thinking about things. That, as far as we can tell through experimentation and observation, requires a fairly complex nervous system equipped with a fairly complex brain.

That is some of the logical grounding behind the commonly held notion that rocks contain no intelligence. Energy and information working together requires more than just energy and information working together.

That is at least a temporary speed bump here.

You make me laugh.

You are so adamant in your beliefs as though it is the only possibility.

They are still not verifiable nor logical to everyone.

Something has always existed but where did the something come from?

Where did that something come from?

Etc...

You have to be able to show the origin of your something to verify it.

But yet it does outside of your mind so it does exist.

Here is the Flaw (I think) (Not knowing anything about the rules of logic its the best I can do.)


Here was my first one:

1)intelligence exists --(a fact)
2)intelligence can't have come from no-intelligence (a conclusion, it does not follow)
3)therefore everything that exists has a degree of intelligence. (another conclusion.)


Here is my revised logic:


1) Intelligence exists. --(a fact)

2) Therefore
A.) Intelligence either currently exists in everything to a degree,

OR it does not and...

B.) There is a point where a non-intelligent thing suddenly acquires intelligence of some degree.

(sigh)

Ah, but they are sometimes JB. That is what logic is all about. It is about figuring out if, when, why, and how that is the case. The term necessarily or the terms not necessarily are extremely important in logic.

The idea in my mind behind pursuing the logical content of any given idea or explanation is to determine it's truth value relative to what we already know. I do not find much use in arbitrarily assigning a term to a definition which would require a complete vocabulary understanding transplant. It nullifies the usefulness of complex language, which is known to be innate in all forms of recognized 'higher' intelligence.

No I don't.

"Where did that something come from? "

Well now that's the big question isn't it?
Just because you can't comprehend it does not mean it is not the case. (That is what you told me about something coming from nothing.)

You choose one thing, I choose the other. I choose the other because it is more likely. It is more likely because nothing cannot exsist therefore it cannot give birth to something.

Also the evidence is THAT WE EXIST NOW. Now is infinity because TIME DOES NOT EXIST.

Its the chicken or the egg question. You have your opinion and I have mine.

Well perhaps they are required hypothetically but they don't have to be set in stone or permanent. My conclusions are temporary. They hold a place in order for the journey to continue. I can always change them. I am not married to them, and I would never die for my beliefs.

Beliefs change. I remain.

Correct except mine is more plausible than yours....

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the above statement. Can you elaborate?

Please explain why you think that is.

All I did was mirror you.

You have been telling all of us how your logic is more plausible than any others.

So you have now been shown what that feels like.

You cannot show how you are right and all others are wrong because your premise has no origin.

What is the origin of the something you claim exists all by itself?

Where did the something come from?

I forgot....
Thanks Creative for giving my "deductions" a name. You know I am not a scholar.

Everything I say or write comes from me just thinking about it for the most part.

Infinite regress...hmmmmmmmmmmmm