Existent/thing: in humans, that which is, or possibly is, an affect upon the senses. — Mww

What about microscopic organisms which we can’t see with our naked eye but only through microscopes do they only exist when they’re perceived via such apparatus or independently of our perception ?

There are other things things that exist too which have no discernible affect upon our senses such as magnetism (a type of force which only affects magnetic material).

For how could it emerge if it wasn’t?

We don't know yet. — 180 Proof

Yes we don’t but we’ve given that process a name called Abiogenesis, the alternative would be woo-woo as to how life came about and we don’t want that.

What is wrong with saying life/intelligence not just emerged but it has been there all along just not manifested to what we today recognise as life ?

At what level of would you call it life is irrelevant because the intelligence displayed even from the structure of the atom to the way the solar system is aligned is apparent (even if life had not emerged there yet)

Isn’t it like looking at the mechanism of a clock and claiming there’s intelligence in action there or is your definition of intelligence more strict and narrow than that ?

Sure I will grant you this and that it can’t be empirically verified. And I or you cannot know for sure if it did exist in a prior universe as we can’t test it.

We can however make the following claims about intelligence which will yield proof in the end.

1. It inevitably manifested itself in nature, at least our reality (this universe)
2. If something is inevitable then it happens in this universe, the one prior and maybe the one after if conditions are right.
3. Intelligence exists as a possibility then actual after a period of time.

We also don’t know why there is life rather then non-life, after all matter could just do nothing and not bring about life (and thus intelligence) but something extraordinary happened, life. Which means that it must have been pre-existing not just as a potential but a real thing.

If life came from non-life can’t you say it was there all along ? For how could it emerge if it wasn’t? In this way we don’t need empirical proof to know that life/intelligence has always been around.

Not faith, I know Intelligence actualised in this universe, what’s your actual objection to it not having actualised in a prior universe also?

My argument has evolved slightly from the opening post as I’ve gained more perspective on the matter, and I’m thankful for the members who have taken part in this discussion so far giving me different perspectives and angles.

With that my argument is more concise and simpler and can be restated as such:

Intelligence precedes the universe, and has eternally existed independently of it and it’s manifestation in nature is inevitable.

It is inevitable because it has occurred at least once (in this universe). As such it’s likely that it has manifested itself prior to the current universe we just have no proof but have good reason to believe that it has done so.

Since the manifestation of intelligence turned out to be inevitable in this universe why couldn’t it have turned out to be inevitable in a universe before this one!

Am I missing something obvious captain ?



I assume your elocution skills have failed you.

You could wipe out your awareness/consciousness by eliminating sodium in your diet. Is this clear? — L'éléphant

Not sure I follow since I’m omitting a physical thing which is what sodium is.

Would you accept the analogy of fish to a pond, although the pond is just a container just like the universe the life in it would make the pond alive ? You’re saying the pond is dead I say it’s alive because it contains life just like the body is a container of the brain it means the whole is intelligent (the human being)

In any case this is besides the point of my OP but a fruitful distraction at the same time.

Intelligence was inevitable as it actualised my main argument is that intelligence precedes the universe and is a quality or thing independent of it.

Intelligence supervenes on the physical. That's the metaphysical assertion that I am claiming. Without the physical reality, there would be no morality, no subjective experience, no concepts of anything. — L'éléphant

How can intelligence be separate from matter to be able to supervene on it ? Are you claiming a diety?

If intelligence is distinct from the physical how can the non-physical affect the physical to give rise to life or other intelligent processes that occur in matter ?

Yes. 'Intelligence' is an emergent feature of sufficiently complex living systems. — 180 Proof

That’s like saying humans beings are not intelligent but only their brains are. This is a linguistic distraction at best from the argument that one of the properties/attributes of the universe is intelligence. I’m sure you don’t disagree with this. Although life itself may not be intelligent such as that of a bacteria it’s governed by intelligent processes, by not only which it emerged but operates. These intelligent processes are pervasive in the universe which would make the universe intelligent.

In my view, intelligence is a physical thing — L'éléphant

Is it not an attribute or property of a physical thing ? How can intelligence be a tangible thing that can be touched? How would you support your assertion if that’s the case ?

Since intelligence is a non-physical thing could it exist independently of matter or is it just an embedded property of matter? If it’s an embedded property of matter then physicalism would be true and false if otherwise.

Sure there would be differences. What’s your point ? Language is just used for naming and describing different things it does not necessarily follow that the objects being described are not lumps of mass.

Well the universe is hardly non-intelligent humans excluded so I don’t see how it’s such a fallacy. There’s definitely an intelligence at play from the orderly motion of the planets to the elegant structure of atoms. Are you saying the universe is non-intelligent irrespective if there is intelligent life in it ?

You have yet to provide proof that the universe is non-intelligent to support your claim, for how would you account for the intelligent laws of physics that account for the orderly movement of the planets ?

It’s like looking at the mechanism of a clock, wouldn’t you say there’s an intelligence behind such a mechanism ? Same for the solar system galaxies atoms etc.

Just a lump of mass? Suppose it has a mass of 500 grams. Is it the same as a 500 gram, lead fishing weight? — Relativist

Of course not they’re different objects with their own separate existence but they’re both just lumps of mass. Language here serves to differentiate between different objects.

Well life exists on one planet in the universe and there is good reason to think that life doesn't exist in vastly more places than it does, and that really doesn't seem all that mysterious to me. I think you might find it a lot less mysterious with some study. — wonderer1

That’s not the question I’m asking but I appreciate your input. We know one thing for sure, that matter went from being inanimate to animate in this universe at least. The process by which it did so is called abiogenesis and scientists still don’t know the exact mechanisms or able to replicate how it happened how life came from non-life.

The question is if intelligence is a property of matter or a thing in itself (which exists of its own) and acts on matter to make it come to life which is what actually happened as we are such intelligence. The other question is whether intelligence preceded the universe or even matter and is a fundamental function of existence itself.

In any case, the upshot of all of this is that the notion that the universe exists as it does 'because of chance' holds no water. — Wayfarer

Regardless of the improbabilities involved in yielding life from non-life the question is more fundamental than that and that is whether intelligence is a function or property of existence itself. We don’t really know why nature manifests intelligence but only that it does so which is perplexing to say the least.

Mass is a property that most things have, although photons are things that have 0 mass. — Relativist

Yes photons are confusing because they’re both waves and particles as far as i understand the concept.

By writing "matter(mass)" are you suggesting matter and mass are identical? They're not. — Relativist

I’d say that mass is not just a property but a thing in itself. My radio is just a lump of mass and not just a property of the radio. The problem appears to be linguistic here.

Ergo the universe is only an expanding (cooling, or entropic) vacuum fluctuation that is/was random / acausal / non-intelligent. — 180 Proof

Non-intelligent? Not so sure about that, because the universe contains intelligence it would make it an intelligent universe. This intelligence then is a property of the universe leading to both ordered (classical physics) and disordered (chaotic-random QM) systems.

This is confused. Energy and mass aren't existents (per se), they are properties of things that exist, and they can be converted to each other (that's entailed by E=MC^2). — Relativist

But matter (mass) is an existent of itself is it not ? Matter is mass as mass is a physical characteristic and exists in itself and can be used interchangeably to refer to matter (matter=mass=energy) so it is not a property of matter rather it is its own existent. The total mass of the universe for example is not a property of any one thing.

This is not to say there are no issues remaining. The main one here is convincing folk that "exits", "real" and "physical" are not synonyms. — Banno

Exactly this. Unicorns exist but they are not real. They exist as concepts (especially in fairy tales and they act too, fictionally speaking).

My definition of existence is anything that has being either in fiction or reality (physical world)

Then how did matter become intelligent unless intelligence was there to begin with.
— kindred
I think what you're really asking is how did consciousness or mind develop from the brain. This is the hard problem of philosophy. And this forum is teeming with threads like this -- really good ones, too.
The subjective experience is a hot button because 'no' philosophical accounts have given us the bridge from the physical to the phenomenal. The critics of consciousness and subjective experience had raised an unconscionable objection against the theories of perception that sort of 'skip' the step on when this -- this consciousness -- develops from physical bodies.
I don't have my own suspicion as to the strength of their argument because, to me, consciousness is physical. As in atomic. As in leptons. The fluidity of our own experience is physical. — L'éléphant

To simplify things I will equate most forms of life as a manifestation of intelligence even though they might not be intelligent themselves, they act in an intelligent manner such as bacteria or other single celled organisms or any other organism that is able to perpetuate itself through forms of replication.

Since this intelligence has manifested itself in nature I would say that it either preceded matter when it was non intelligent or non-alive or it co-existed with matter as potential for intelligence when it was non-living.

Therefore non-living things have the potential to be alive (and eventually intelligent through abiogenesis and evolution)

Perhaps the simplest and more uncontestable form of argument is to say that matter and intelligence exist in tangent. There’s certainly intelligence even in how the atom is structured, in how electrons go round the nucleus which in turn is glued together by the strong nuclear force that bind together neutrons and protons.

Is your point something like something exists before it exists? — tim wood

Not something but intelligence particularly. Since inanimate matter has the potential to become animate through abiogenesis and eventually intelligent I’d say that it preceded the universe. Intelligence then is a property of existence itself whatever existence may be.

Matter, substance and energy can be used interchangeably to define existence, irrespective of time they have existed eternally in tangent with intelligence which is one of its properties or facet.

Life could simply not have arisen, and it would have been far easier in terms of explanation if it hadn’t yet it did, which remains a mystery.

Matter precedes intelligence — L'éléphant

Then how or why did matter become intelligent unless intelligence was there to begin with.

It sounds like your view is that the intelligence must be there first before we could be the intelligent life forms. But it is more reasonable to think that matter must be there first -- the brain, the body, the senses for neural connections to occur. — L'éléphant

Then that must mean intelligence precedes life in that it’s the potential for inanimate matter to become matter. Where did this intelligence come from ? My argument is that it’s been there all along and preceded life.

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 — Janus

We can’t do calculations but we do know that intelligence has been there all along like a latent force that eventually manifested itself in nature. Whether this has occurred only once in this universe on our planet for the first time is debatable as it could have easily existed/manifested prior to the current universe.

pretty much, the rest seems to be technicalities. If intelligence did happen then it had to happen, we’re just arguing if it happened before or not. That’s it.

No, they are independent, discrete properties which very infrequently overlap. — 180 Proof

Sure the same way that tree is not as intelligent as a squirrel. I get you, yet we have both flora and fauna in this universe which over time emerged from non-life, after all this planet to begin with was a hot rock.

We know the process from non-life to life (abiogenesis) happened in the oceans under thermal vents where various chemical reactions could take place to non-organic matter to eventually simple cells such as bacteria and eventually multi-cellular ones and ultimately humans.

Life then before non-life was a possibility not actuality, the same applies to matter prior to the Big Bang, life for it too was a possibility given the right conditions it too could become alive. The question then is whether the same process of abiogenesis occurred there too and that is what is being contested here. Since we do know that life did emerge from a possibility to an actuality then it’s a question of likelihood whether this happened in a universe prior to the Big Bang is it not ? (Since non-life has the potential to become life under certain conditions)

How do you/we "know" this? — 180 Proof

Logic, something can’t come from nothing therefore something has always existed even if it’s vacuum it’s still something (space)

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.

What is a "logical" explanation? You seem to be making a categorical distinction: how does an explanation differ from a logical explanation? - Assuming that by "explanation" we mean something that makes sense as opposed to something that does not or cannot make sense. — tim wood

You’re right of course the word logical was not necessary unless invoking a non-logical explanation such as god did it or other supernatural explanation.

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)

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Would you then agree that non-life has the potential to give rise to life and intelligence? Would you also then agree that at the very least intelligence is a potential in the universe?

– if local-temporal / particular "int", then global-eternal / universal "INT". :roll: — 180 Proof

At first it looks like a compositional fallacy yet at the same time you can’t get something from nothing just like you can’t get life from non-life unless there’s always been a type of eternal/universal intelligence in the first place otherwise non-intelligence would have always existed and not given rise to the intelligence we observe now.

So you don’t believe that these processes exhibit intelligence from an anthropic perspective? Just because there’s an intelligence behind the motion of moving bodies like planets etc I’m not claiming it’s conscious or that it is alive but rather that there’s an intelligence behind such motions otherwise they wouldn’t stay in orbit and collapse (thus no life).

I’m neither animist or panpsychist but i do believe that intelligence is an inherent part of existence otherwise there would be no motion of the planets, no life and fundamentally nothingness.

Let me ask you this do you think an ant colony is intelligent? in a way it’s just a more highly evolved self-organising process or would you say that its life and you’re referring to non-organic life processes ?

If so then why would non-life lead to life? (Abiogenesis) or put more simply how do you get intelligence from non-intelligence? You can’t.

These stages represent emergent levels of intelligence, with each subsequent level demonstrating greater capabilities than its predecessor. This hierarchical development illustrates the ongoing evolution and complexification of intelligence throughout the cosmos. — punos

Your view is that intelligence evolves with the progress of the universe. My belief is that intelligence from inception has no such ceilings. It’s products might show different levels of intelligence such as the difference between a fish and a human being but intelligence itself governing the universe has no such limits such as is confined to each different creature.

I think intelligence is at its most basic a logical structure ingrained/fundamental within nature. — Benj96

I agree. There’s certainly beauty and elegance in mathematical formulas describing the physical world and this is no mere chance but the product of an intelligence which predates the current universe.