I’m making the rather bold claim that intelligence is an inherent part of nature whether this is existed just post big bang is debatable and that in fact it has existed before. — kindred

How are we to understand what this claim that intelligence is an inherent part of nature even means? And even if we understood what the claim means possible rational or empirical reason would we have to believe such a thing?

Note I'm not denying that one might have emotional or psychological reasons to believe such a thing.

Hi Janus, as we know life came from non-life. Intelligence from non-intelligence so intelligence was at least a potential of non-life and since this potential actualised it means it’s been there all along rather than it being the first time it has emerged. This is my argument in a nutshell.

And if "you can't get life from non-life", then either (A) everything is alive, (B) nothing is alive – "life" is an illusion or (C) biogenesis is a miracle – product of divine/transcendent intelligence aka "God". Which do you "believe", kindred? — 180 Proof

I fall into the A category although slightly modified … everything has the potential to be alive or intelligent. Plant a seed and it will bloom into a tree given the right conditions. Inanimate matter given the right conditions will react with other non organic matter to form new types of matter to eventually multi cellular organism which is what the process of abiogeneses ultimately achieved.

Would you then agree that non-life has the potential to give rise to life and intelligence? — kindred

No. "Life" is, as best we can tell, merely a very rare property of non-life.

Would you also then agree that at the very least intelligence is a potential in the universe?

No, it's actually manifest. "Intelligence" is, in its most basic form, the capability of adapting to change inherent in complex agent systems – both living and artificial.

Okay, a quasi-animist.

If nature were completely deterministic then your argument might in part follow, since on that assumption, given initial conditions (the Big Bang) intelligence would have inevitably evolved. But even then it does not follow that it was "there all along" only that it was there as a necessary eventuality. On the other hand, if nature is indeterministic, then the evolution of intelligence would not seem to be inevitable, but we could still say that it was a potential eventuality that may or may not have been actualized.

The same would seem to be as true of life as it is of intelligence or consciousness.

No. "Life" is, as best we can tell, merely a very rare property of non-life. — 180 Proof

Then you could equate life with intelligence and you’d be saying that intelligence is a rare property of non-life. If, mass/matter only emerged with the Big Bang then it would follow that this intelligence is a property of this universe. We don’t know if matter existed prior to the Big Bang but we do know that something has always existed. Otherwise the implication would be that the universe came from nothing or nothingness which is impossible.

Now since something has always existed in non-organic form and since you agree that life (or intelligence) is a rare property of non-life then it follows that there’s a chance that in a pre big bang world this matter was organic too (life) and intelligent.

Your view is that intelligence evolves with the progress of the universe. My belief is that intelligence from inception has no such ceilings. — kindred

If this is so, then why, for example, does the universe need to establish atomic organization prior to the emergence of molecular organization (or intelligence)? Why didn't the universe make molecules first and then the atoms? Can it make molecules first, then atoms? What is the reason for this order of emergence in your view?

Yet, like you i believe that there is no real limit to the levels of intelligence that can emerge or be reached in the universe, except given enough time and evolutionary development as i already stated. Complex logical structures (facilitated by matter) are as potentially infinite as numbers are potentially infinite.

If nature were completely deterministic then your argument might in part follow, since on that assumption, given initial conditions (the Big Bang) intelligence would have inevitably evolved. But even then it does not follow that it was "there all along" only that it was there as a necessary eventuality. On the other hand, if nature is indeterministic, then the evolution of intelligence would not seem to be inevitable, but we could still say that it was a potential eventuality that may or may not have been actualized. — Janus

Irrespective of whether nature is deterministic or not we do know that life/intelligence emerged at least in this universe which means that not only is it a property of this universe but of existence itself.

Since life is a property or a potential of non-life through various chemical then biological processes then this property is merely a manifestation of its nature which is to be alive. It’s not a goal btw, but a property and a potential.

If this is so, then why, for example, does the universe need to establish atomic organization prior to the emergence of molecular organization (or intelligence)? Why didn't the universe make molecules first and then the atoms? Can it make molecules first, then atoms? What is the reason for this order of emergence in your view — punos

The intelligence has always been there it’s just a matter of ingredients or parts. In order to build a car first you have to invent the wheel. The invention of the wheel is was a sign of great intelligence at the time. Next you invent the combustion engine, another exhibition of intelligence. In the end you end up with the finished product, now it doesn’t necessarily mean that the inventor of the engine was more intelligent than the inventor of the wheel. Order happens in increments and, intelligence is intelligence, the orders of magnitude are irrelevant but the potential of intelligence is unlimited it’s like comparing apples to oranges or saying fish are more intelligent than cats because they’re better swimmers. They’re just better adapted to certain things.

As I said if life and intelligence were inevitable evolutionary eventualities of our universe it still would not follow that they are necessary potentialities of any and all existence, but merely of our own universe.

If life and intelligence were not inevitable evolutionary eventualities, that is if it is the case that they might not have evolved, then they are not necessary potentialities. Is there a valid distinction between possible and necessary potentialities according to you?

The other point is that whether or not life and intelligence were necessary or merely possible eventualities it is not appropriate to refer to them as properties prior to their advent.

The question I have is…has intelligence always been around before this world was created prior to the Big Bang or was it simply an emergent phenomenon thereafter ?

In my opinion intelligence must have been pre-existing and manifested (or re-manifested) itself in life and nature and through us human beings. — kindred

I'm sympathetic to this line of thought, probably more so than others. But philosophically speaking, there's an issue with the question of the sense in which such an intelligence, were there one, could be said to exist.

Consider the idea of 'laws of nature'. It is naively assumed that these laws exist, but that has been called into question by philosophers of science (for example Nancy Cartwright, 'How the Laws of Physics Lie'.) Others will argue that there are such laws, or at least natural regularities that are law-like. But without going into the intricacies of those arguments, notice that the question of the existence or non-existrence of those laws or regularities, is of a different order to what can be predicted and explained by virtue of such laws. Taking the regularities of physics as an example, these allow for incredibly accurate predictions and explanations which are at the basis of much of the success of modern science. But why the laws of physics are as they are - why F=MA or e=mc² - is of another kind of question. Explanations on that level, if there are to be any, must be meta-scientific or metaphysical.

So what I'm arguing is that the nature of the order which is essential to and assumed by science, is not itself a scientific question. Science relies on there being an order, but does not, and need not, explain why there is. And accordingly, statements about whether a designing intelligence or divinely-ordained order pre-exists or exists, are by their nature metaphysical statements. Which is not to say they're wrong, but that they are not subject to scientific analysis or demonstration. But claiming that these influences or entities [i[exist[/i] you're inviting the question, 'how can you show that or demonstrate that?' And I doubt that question can be answered in terms of the criteria of those who have a commitment to not believing it (who are legion!) You're essentially trying to bring a transcendent order of being down to the level of what can be said to exist.

I was perusing the SEP entry of a second-tier German philosopher that I hadn't heard of until recently, Max Scheler. He has this to say about religious experience:

According to Scheler, the modern worldview harbors a prejudice with respect to what counts as an experience or what is evidential. For the modern thinker, only those experiences that can be proven in a rational or logical manner are true or evidential experiences (GW V, 104). The prejudice is not that matters of faith or religious experience are not meaningful, but that they are not subject to rigorous scientific or critical investigation. Because they lie outside the bounds of reason, we are, as Wittgenstein would say, to remain silent. — SEP

Speaking from long experience, I think you will find that describes the majority view, at least on this forum.

(See also God Does Not Exist, Bishop Pierre Whalon.)

:up:

This may be somewhat dumb, but isn't it also the case that we (humans) are conducting the assessment here? Notions of 'intelligence' and 'reality' and 'the universe' would appear to me to be constructs of ours based on defeasible positions and knowledge which is constantly evolving. Is it even clear that reality can be understood by human beings? We are certainly able to build tentative theories and through some of them make predictions with results, but are we perhaps getting a bit ahead of ourselves in seeking to answer the OP's question? Thoughts?

If life and intelligence were not inevitable evolutionary eventualities, that is if it is the case that they might not have evolved, then they are not necessary potentialities. Is there a valid distinction between possible and necessary potentialities according to you? — Janus

There’s only a valid post-hoc distinction between possible and necessary in this case. Since life did emerge then it’s necessary, if it didn’t then it was possible. Now not every rock can come to life, certain conditions have to be met (abiogenesis).

Now since life did actually emerge from non-life as we know, we do at least know that non-life has the potential to transform into various types of molecule up to a multicellular organism. The question is whether it did so prior to this universe. We do also know that in this universe it was inevitable…why couldn’t it be inevitable prior to this universe too ?

This may be somewhat dumb, but isn't it also the case that we (humans) are conducting the assessment here? Notions of 'intelligence' and 'reality' and 'the universe' are constructs of ours based on defeasible positions and knowledge which is constantly evolving. Is it even clear that reality can be understood by human beings? We are certainly able to build tentative theories and through some of them make predictions with results, but are we perhaps getting a bit ahead of ourselves in seeking to answer the OP's question? Thoughts? — Tom Storm

I don't think that's dumb at all but a very good question. We always assume that we know what we mean when we talk about 'god' or' universe' or 'necessary' or 'inevitable'. Even if we do understand what they mean in the context of our own thinking, or the epistemological context, we have no idea what relevance they might or might not have in what we might imagine as the "ontological" context.

I took the OP's question as being something like "are we warranted in saying that intelligence pre-existed existence". So we can ask whether that is even a meaningful question or whether it is a case of "language gone on holiday". Under the latter interpretation how could we be warranted in claiming something that we don't even understand?

All that being said how can we even know whether or not we understand these kinds of questions let alone answer them? I think you and I are of a similar deflationary spirit.

Now since life did actually emerge from non-life as we know, we do at least know that non-life has the potential to transform into various types of molecule up to a multicellular organism. The question is whether it did so in prior to this universe. We do also know that in this universe it was inevitable…why couldn’t it be inevitable prior to this universe too ? — kindred

We don't know that it was inevitable in this universe though and that is because we don't know whether the universe is deterministic or non-deterministic. Current physical theory suggests the latter, and if the latter were the case, then life and intelligence should not be thought of as inevitable but merely possible.

If nature were completely deterministic then your argument might in part follow, since on that assumption, given initial conditions (the Big Bang) intelligence would have inevitably evolved. But even then it does not follow that it was "there all along" only that it was there as a necessary eventuality. — Janus

I believe that nature, this universe, is fully deterministic, and it is precisely that deterministic nature that is an expression of its inherent intelligence. Chaos theory implies that even chaos has a logic, an order. We call what we don't understand random or non-deterministic because WE can't determine its reason. Nothing happens for no reason at all, and in that reason lies the intelligence many of us can't recognize. For there to be a potential for an eventuality, there must be something prior that enables eventualities to occur. What would you say this is, if anything?

Thanks I understand your point now. Just because life happened doesn’t necessarily mean that it was inevitable. Since current physics (quantum physics) supports the view that some physical phenomena are non-deterministic then life was indeed a possibility yet it emerged and actualised but given enough time (eternity) then this possibility becomes an inevitability.

What would you say this is, if anything? — punos

I would say that I don't see much reason to believe such a thing. In the early universe, according to current theory, there were no atoms and hence no chemistry. Without chemistry life and intelligence as we know and understand them would be impossible. Was the evolution of atoms inevitable? How could we know?

Since current physics (quantum physics) supports the view that some physical phenomena are non-deterministic then life was indeed a possibility yet it emerged and actualised but given enough time (eternity) then this possibility becomes an inevitability. — kindred

I'm not sure we would be warranted in claiming that it was inevitable even given the context of thinking in terms of no time limit. I understand 'eternity' to mean 'non-temporality' not 'an infinitely great amount of time' because I think the latter idea makes no sense.

Was the evolution of atoms inevitable? How could we know? — Janus

Knowing if it's inevitable from a point in time before it happens may or may not be difficult to ascertain, depending on one's level of knowledge of the matrix of interactions between fundamental particles. The point is that it happened, and so we know after the fact that it was inevitable.

The point i was trying to get at with the question is the concept of absolute time (time with no arrow), and the logic of this 'time', which is, in essence, continuity, presistence and change (the cause of change, not its measurement), even before our universe, or we would not exist. Everything happens in due time.

So what I'm arguing is that the nature of the order which is essential to and assumed by science, is not itself a scientific question. Science relies on there being an order, but does not, and need not, explain why there is. And accordingly, statements about whether a designing intelligence or divinely-ordained order pre-exists or exists, are by their nature metaphysical statements. Which is not to say they're wrong, but that they are not subject to scientific analysis or demonstration. But claiming that these influences or entities [i[exist[/i] you're inviting the question, 'how can you show that or demonstrate that?' And I doubt that question can be answered in terms of the criteria of those who have a commitment to not believing it (who are legion!) You're essentially trying to bring a transcendent order of being down to the level of what can be said to exist. — Wayfarer

Hi wayfarer thanks for your post. The question boils down to inevitability, possibility and actuality. Working in reverse we know that life (intelligence) has emerged which means it was possible. Now the last step is whether it was inevitable and since it was both possible and currently actual then it must follow that it is inevitable in an eternal universe. Or it was there before the localised event such as the Big Bang happened. Given enough time, in this case eternity, the step from non-life to life and this intelligence occurred.

However there is a problem with infinate time as @Janus pointed out. If using the definition of infinite time makes no sense conceptually to us humans, then it helps to look at it from a different angle in terms of the laws of physics and change which would better accommodate the idea of infinite time (for after all what would time be if everything was static). Since the reality is always in flux apart from when it’s at absolute 0 then events happen in time, this creates endless possibilities for atoms to go from there to become living cells given the right incubating environment and other chemical interactions to occur.

Yet we are faced with a problem and that being whether life (intelligence) was an inevitability, however since we know that it actualised then to me it follows that it necessarily was because it did emerge. The other question is whether the same logic applies to the universe before the Big Bang. We of course don’t know whether this possibility became an actuality there so we can’t comment but even if the laws of physics were different there then it just means life was different too (if life came from non-life since it’s always a possibility, this at least we know for if something is actual it must have been possible)

The point is that it happened, and so we know after the fact that it was inevitable. — punos

That simply does not follow. For the rest I have no idea what you are trying to say.

I understand 'eternity' to mean 'non-temporality' not "an infinitely great amount of time' because I think the latter idea makes no sense. — Janus

For me, it is the opposite. It makes no sense to not have time and then all of a sudden for no reason time appears like magic. If time is change, and there were no time, then what changed for things to begin changing? Funny question isn't it. That is why everything exists inside time, never outside it (as that makes no sense). Existence cannot come from a state of absolute nothingness. In my view, time (absolute time, and the logic it contains) is the only thing that is not a thing, and is the source of things coming into being. Everything begins and ends except for time, and thus time is not a thing, and has always been, and will always be.

The point is that it happened, and so we know after the fact that it was inevitable. — punos


That simply does not follow. — Janus

But apparently it did follow... literally.

For the rest I have no idea what you are trying to say. — Janus

Please be more specific if you can. Is it my concept of absolute time?

That is why everything exists inside time, never outside it (as that makes no sense). — punos

I agree that we cannot find the idea of non-temporal existence coherent. We cannot think a 'before time'. But we equally cannot find the idea of an infinite quantity of time coherent. Where do you think that leaves us?

But apparently it did follow... literally. — punos

The fact that it apparently did follow does not entail that it must have followed.

Is it my concept of absolute time? — punos

I have no idea what "absolute time" could mean.

I'm not sure we would be warranted in claiming that it was inevitable even given the context of thinking in terms of no time limit. I understand 'eternity' to mean 'non-temporality' not 'an infinitely great amount of time' because I think the latter idea makes no sense. — Janus

This is a good point. Time limit or no we know one thing for sure that is that life (intelligence) emerged. What you object to is whether it was an inevitability.

We also know that life was a possibility and we know this since it did emerge. Sometimes possibilities do not actualise and that’s a fair point which means life would not have emerged here.

The strange thing is that it did! Could it have happened before? It’s a possibility. The scary thing is if life has actually emerged for the first time rather than occur before yet since it was a possibility then it’s a question of likelihood whether it happened prior to this universe. It seems to me since this event has at least happened in this universe then life is a necessity of non-life irrespective of time frames.

But we equally cannot find the idea of an infinite quantity of time coherent. Where do you think that leaves us? — Janus

It seems coherent to me. The alternative is what seems incoherent to me, like i explained.

I have no idea what "absolute time" could mean. — Janus

First let me ask you what you think time is, just regular time as you understand it?

Then you could equate life with intelligence ... — kindred

No, I surmise that they are independent, discrete properties which rarely overlap.

... and you’d be saying that intelligence is a rare property of non-life

Yes.

we do know that something has always existed

How do you/we "know" this?

pre big bang world

This phrase is nonsense. "World" (i.e. universe) is an effect of the Big Bang. "Pre-big bang" cannot be a "world".

It seems to me since this event has at least happened in this universe then life is a necessity of non-life irrespective of time frames. — kindred

It seems you are basing that on some kind sense of likelihood. I don't think we can do any calculation of likelihood in this kind of case, so your conviction remains an intuitively or psychologically, not a rationally, motivated one. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but I think it's important to "call a spade a spade".

It seems coherent to me. The alternative is what seems incoherent to me, like i explained. — punos

It might "feel" coherent to you, but I bet you cannot give a coherent explanation of what it means.

First let me ask you what you think time is, just regular time as you understand it? — punos

Even ordinary time is not so easy to explain, but I don't think that helps your case. Is time just change, or is time a kind of "medium" in which change occurs?