Reality is neither intelligent or unintelligent. It just exists.
Anyone ever play with “Life” aka Conway’s Game of Life?
It is a zero-player game, meaning that its evolution is determined by its initial state, requiring no further input. One interacts with the Game of Life by creating an initial configuration and observing how it evolves. It is Turing complete and can simulate a universal constructor or any other Turing machine.
There are apps out there. Variable rules, starting configurations, etc.
From simple rules comes complex “entities”
@cuthbertjP One of the problems about talking about intelligence is that we’ve been trained to think of ourselves as separate from the universe (and somehow special). But we’re not.To paraphrase Carl Sagan – we’re one way the universe contemplates itself. Point being, I exhibit intelligence, you do, dogs do, insects do, etc. That’s the universe being intelligent.
A voice of rationality. Thank you.
Let’s take a look at the beginnings of all this.
Is “intelligence” a property of reality?As example, consider the laws of physics. These laws are obviously real, but they don’t exist in the sense of having weight, mass, shape, form etc. The laws of physics are not a property of any particular thing within reality, but rather a property of reality itself.
These laws are expressed in an infinite variety of ways, depending on the nature of the particular things which they affect. A bouncing ball and rotating galaxy appear very different, but they are governed by the same laws.
Is “intelligence” like the laws of physics, a universal property of reality which expresses itself in a variety of ways?
I’m putting “intelligence” in quotes in recognition that what we call intelligence is an extremely local phenomena. It’s a useful concept at human scale when comparing, say, humans and donkeys. But human scale is infinitely small in comparison to reality itself.
I don’t know what word would describe a universal phenomena, a property of reality itself, which would result in something as small as bacteria acting in an intelligent manner, or a process like evolution proceeding in a manner which we would label intelligent if we invented it.
So I’m calling such a proposed universal property “intelligence” until we find a better word for it.
How do we explain bacteria being involved in complex data management operations?
What is the source of that phenomena?
Yes, to me these seemed like a clear description of ideas and questions and something that could be constructively worked with.
Since it seems to me Intelligent Design notions were where it was going, I though we might as well look at the “Intelligent Design Notion” …
So I took it from there, tried to lay down a foundational response, with some specific definitions.
@citizenschallenge: That was ...(one of the better)... first time posts I’ve seen around here.How we formulate our questions, dictates the quality of our question, and to my eyes, those are some well formulated questions.
I have no answers, but will chew on your formulation for sure, there’s intellectual nourishment within.
I’m wondering is this where notions of “God” and “Intelligent Design” come in?
This is where I’d suggest some prerequisites to achieving a serious appreciation for your questions and our ‘human condition’ in general. Along with how we understand the existence we find ourselves within – is .
A good place to introduce: “Physical Reality ~ Human Mindscape divide.”
Namely, an appreciation that Earth is our touchstone with Reality, and that we humans are mammalian products of Deep Time and Earth’s Evolution.
As for the so-called Body/Mind “Problem” – it’s a contrived hangover, the product of egoistical Abrahamic religious thinking, like draft horse-blinders, intent on limiting our understanding of the Earth we depend on for our existence.
In reality it’s an EGO v God Problem.
All we know comes from within us. Gods belong within our Human Mindscapes. We create God to fulfill our personal needs. Our relationship with god is the most intimate relationship of any human’s life. Precisely because “God” is a notion from within ourselves, the crutches we need to make nature’s challenges and its overwhelming folds within folds of cumulative harmonic complexity, followed by our death, sensible and life livable.
In any event, God is real, but God is our own individual creation. A reflection of our creature need to learn and understand. Enter the Physical Reality ~ Human Mindscape divide.
It helps to also have an appreciation that we cannot truly understand any organism, big or small, simple or complex, without also understanding it’s environment.
@didirius came up with a good response, that sounds like he'd actually taken the time to read what I wrote, I imagine he even spent a moment or two thinking about it.
Then Tanny comes along at #347270, and it reminded me of some ADD joke that had nothing to do with the questions I asked.
<blockquote>CC: In any event, God is real, but God is our own individual creation.
Tanny: I understand, yes, that is a fundamental principle of atheist ideology. I don’t object, and can’t prove otherwise, but personally see no reason to accept this unproven faith based belief any more than I would some unproven claim from the Bible.</blockquote>
Well if you see no reason to think about it, why the hell you wasting our time?
Lausten seemed offended that I said you were a disappointment and I felt bad about it, until I started thinking about it - all I was doing was stating a simply fact. You come on all big like you'd like to have a real dialogue, and it turns out you're just another pea shooter. Your beliefs are your beliefs and beyond the realm of discussion or reconsideration. You want to pretend we are the same, but we aren't, I'm ready to listen to critique and defend my convictions with rational ideas and constructive discussion. I though you were going to offer some thoughtful challenges. Instead, watching you these past couple days makes clear you aren't ready for that. Why do I think that? Because you've been a disingenuous game player, and that makes me sad. ✌️Whether we zoom in or out into nature, there is far too much order in all that we can observe, so as to make the answer to your question a definitive YES. -- heartnsoulWelcome to the forum. So much going on lately, I didn't even see you come in!
Lausten seemed offended that I said you were a disappointment and I felt bad about it, until I started thinking about it -- ccNot offended. Sorry I gave that impression. Maybe not the word I would choose, but I have similar feelings. I've spent most my life around the "new age" crowd, the ones who talk about Gaia, or are willing to eliminate every known deity in the universe but then deify the universe itself. It's more interesting than dealing with a Biblical literalist, but the logic is only slightly better. Tanny seems full of surprises, so, hopefuly some good ones are still coming.
?
[quote=“tanny, post:2, topic:8045”]
How do we explain bacteria being involved in complex data management operations?
What is the source of that phenomena? [/quote]
It is called “quorum sensing”, a chemical communication using specific hormones as words which can trigger action response. Watch this very entertaining and clear lecture by Bonnie Bassler,
I support Max Tegmarks hypothesis of a mathematical universe, which relies on the natural abstract law of cause and effect in the processing of relational values:
Input → function → output.
As this process is based on Natural laws (mathematical algorithms and equations) it creates the “appearance of motivated intelligence”, but it is a non-sentient “quasi-intelligent” process.
I think we can assign a label of quasi-intelligent to the orderly processes in accordance with identified Natural laws .
Just as bacteria can be called bilingual and communicate via two natural chemical languages (quorum sensing), which we might call “quasi-literate”.
I’ll allow that, but could you explain further as to how it’s quasi-intelligent besides using bacteria as an example.
Let me begin by also assigning a mathematical ability to bacteria in addition to being bilingual. Bacteria can communicate and can count, i.e. knowing the difference between “more and less”. This is what quorum sensing does.
Objectively , there are a lot of "natural patterns that depend on (knowing, experiencing) the difference between “more and less”. Almost all living organisms know the difference between “ore” from “less”. Bees communicate a “plentiful” patch to the hive, complete with a map based on the position of the sun.
Bacteria are not intelligent, they have no brain. They act via specific chemical interactions. It is the result of these mathematical chemical interactions that give the appearance of quasi-intelligent behavior. The bacteria, by natural selection" has adopted some of the chemical language for its survival . It has learned to use chemistry for its own homeostasis. It is quasi-intelligent.
But that’s not where it stops.
Going more fundamental to pure chemicals. According to the table of elements each chemical element has a specific mathematical atomic weight and pattern, i.e. different mathematical values. These elements also interact in strict accordance to their inherent values, via mathematical algorithms and equations.
Example: 2 H + 1 O = H2O This combination is a mathematical function. Now combine a trillion dry H2O molecules at room temperature and you get …water!!!
IMO, that is a quasi intelligent function, completely natural by following exact natural laws. It has nothing to do with consciousness or ability to count. I agree with your posit that it just works, it just IS.
Therefore I extend the term “quasi-intelligent” to the stochastic Universe and all its physical interactions. It doesn’t consciously know anything, but it behaves as if it does.
Quasi-intelligence = seemingly, apparently, measurably, orderly, but not really consciously intelligent.
And that is a characteristic of Mathematics. It is a quasi-intelligent mode of processing data.
I agree, but intelligence does not describe function, it describes a property.
This is why I propose that the Universe posesses quasi-intelligencnt properties and that these quasi-intelligent properties function mathematically.
I believe this argument can withstand any conceptual challenge.
Quorum Sensing !
## Quorum sensing
In biology, quorum sensing is the ability to detect and respond to cell population density by gene regulation. As one example, quorum sensing enables bacteria to restrict the expression of specific genes to the high cell densities at which the resulting phenotypes will be most beneficial.
Advantages
Quorum sensing allows individual bacteria within colonies to coordinate and carry out colony-wide functions such as: sporulation, bioluminescence, virulence, conjugation, competence and biofilm formation.Jun 12, 2020
Okay, guess the only point I want to make is that, it’s a concept firmly entombed within the Human Mindscape.
It does not actually represent the physical reality we are embedded within. It’s a conjecture based on interpreting how humans learned to harness knowledge of the physical reality we must negotiate every day.
Math has been an awesome tool, but you’re still claiming it’s the thing itself.
Or perhaps, who knows, maybe this is just a reiteration of the “lightening/thunder” story - two aspects of the same phenomena.
Still it’s an assertion, just as God in all his variations is an assertion.
Outside of science if for no other reason than that it can’t be tested, can’t even be observed. We see spinning energy - the only way to describe it is with mathematics. From my down to Earth perspective, I conclude mathematics is a reflection of nature, not the other way around.
The reason it’s important is that my mental energies are focused on better understanding this being I inhabit. From continuing to learn about biology and evolution and all those milestones throughout the past four and half billion years that are embedded within who we are.
Trying to wrap my head around the implications within the biological truism:
You can’t understand an organism, if you don’t understand it’s environment.
I’m focused on this Earth as a real thing, changing as a consequence of real world inputs, understanding how the global heat and moisture engine operates, and how it drives Earth’s life sustaining biosphere, etc…
Pie in the sky, is simply pie in the sky for me. I’ve had my seasons with all those grand cosmic musings back in da day, some didn’t call me a cosmic cowboy for nothing.
But, in the end all that was just an appetizer for the real show - that is getting to know the universe within my own body and within this planet’s incomparable biosphere and what that has to teach me/us about our combined history right here and now, here on Earth. With glimpses into the future for a dubious bonus.
I believe that we are so accustomed to relating all reality to our subjective experience that we have trouble associating natural dynamical phenomena as having functional rules (laws) which govern the deterministic aspect of reality.
I try to completely remove the human perspective from the equation and look at the universe from a purely objective non-human perspective.
Would an alien see the same universal laws at work, the same gravitational forces, the same orbits of planets around their stars, the same chemistry, the same evolutionary processes, all according to the very same processes of Input → Function → Output, as we have identified? Would they have the same mathematics, just with different symbols?
Yes. We know how most of the universe works and if the universe is uniform then all laws that apply to us apply everywhere to every observer.
Now we’re getting down to crux. What do you gain by doing that?
How does that better inform your relationship with yourself, or with the world around you?
On a side note,
I used to try the meditation thing, the guru challenge to totally empty yourself of thoughts, become one with the universe and all that. Until I achieved that blank state of mind for a moment. It was a horrendous moment - like finding yourself outside a space with nothing but black emptiness around me. No thanks. I gained a whole new level of appreciation for my body and living within the confines of our beautiful fantastical Earth that day.
Oh I just want to know something about that.
It occurred to me that I like your analogy of “folds whitin folds”
If we consider tat reality always contains a pattern or sets of patterns. If that is true, then the concept of a mathematical universe begins to make sense. It really seems to be axiomatic that the universe must obey certain mathematically based universal laws, but OTOH, also contains the mathematical permissions and self-organization of complex patterns. Even in pure chemistry the concept of growth is perfectly acceptable.
My question is; Where do quasi-intelligent mathematical functions create life first as a regular dynamic pattern like an planetary orbit, a quasi intelligent mathematical function. The formation of planets in accordance with gravitational law, a quasi-intelligent mathematical function . The chemical growth patterns, then the self-replicating patterns, then biological patterns, then conscious biological patterns, then human patterns, every stage representing a part of a process that began with the BB.
Is our understanding what constitutes “dynamism” and what constitutes “life”, when view from a universal perspective. Perhaps the Universe is a giant biome itself, the biome of earth is itself merely one of its trillions and trillions of other inhabitants from speciation.
Reality is dynamical unfolding of patterns from inherent potential patterns (the Implicate), and expressed physical patterns ( the Explicate). The universe contained sufficient creative potentials to necessitate expression in physical reality.
Reality as we know it seems to have a quasi-intelligent essence, else regularities and self-organization of patterns would not be possible.
The one known and symbolically codified quasi-intelligent organizational process is of a mathematical nature.
What is the best definition of mathematics?
mathematics, the science of structure, order, and relation that has evolved from elemental practices of counting, measuring, and describing the shapes of objects.
It deals with logical reasoning and quantitative calculation, and its development has involved an increasing degree of idealization and abstraction of its subject matter. Since the 17th century, mathematics has been an indispensable adjunct to the physical sciences and technology, and in more recent times it has assumed a similar role in the quantitative aspects of the life sciences.
Mathematics | Definition, History, & Importance | Britannica