Is a Universe intelligent?

Robin · 29th August 2007, 10:52 PM

1. A brain is a physical system that in some cases produces an output like, say, a mobile phone.

2. A universe is a physical system that in some cases produces an output like, say, a human being.

We call the first system (or at least part of it) "intelligent". Is it then reasonable to refer to the second system or any part of the process that results in a human being "intelligent"?

If not, why not?

Loss Leader · 29th August 2007, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by Robin

1. A brain is a physical system that in some cases produces an output like, say, a mobile phone.

2. A universe is a physical system that in some cases produces an output like, say, a human being.

We call the first system (or at least part of it) "intelligent". Is it then reasonable to refer to the second system or any part of the process that results in a human being "intelligent"?

If not, why not?

The guy who invented the cell phone did it with the purpose of making a call.

It's not the fact that cell phones are complex that means they were intelligently designed, it's the fact that their purpose preceded their existence.

Do you have any evidence that the purpose of human beings preceded their existence?

Puppycow · 30th August 2007, 12:29 AM

This is an interesting question. I sometimes have wondered: since I have this subjective experience called 'consciousness' perhaps other things also have a similar subjective experience. Certainly it seems reasonable to assume that other people have similar states of conciousness. Animals appear to have some sort of conciousness, but we cannot experience the world as they experience it. What is is like, for example, to be a bat and sense the world through sonar? But perhaps conciousness is not necessarily limited to animals? How would we know? There is no device that can detect conciousness. Maybe the universe itself has some sort of conciousness or subjective experience. It is a mystery.

Kevin_Lowe · 30th August 2007, 01:58 AM

Every intelligence ever observed has been an activity going on in a squishy bit of meat between an animal's ears. We have hypothesised that a silicon-based intelligence might be possible, and it would be an activity going on in a computer.

What we've never seen is an intelligence consisting of a nigh-inconceivably huge expanse of vacuum, with the occasional star or speck of free-falling rock and gas in it.

I've said in the past that it makes as much sense to say the universe is a banana as it does to say the universe is a mind. It's got nothing in common with any mind (or banana) any human has ever encountered.

Bob Klase · 30th August 2007, 06:33 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

EWhat we've never seen is an intelligence consisting of a nigh-inconceivably huge expanse of vacuum, with the occasional star or speck of free-falling rock and gas in it.

Except for this blonde that I dated once....

Beerina · 30th August 2007, 06:58 AM

We consider the brain to be intelligent, though we also consider the head to be so, as well as the body as a whole. Yes, those are three relatively arbitrary dividing lines. Certainly the brain would be the minimum of these, for humans anyway. I suppose you could find large parts of a brain that make up 99% of consciousness and call just that part intelligent.

Brain = minimum conglomeration of "stuff" to be considered intelligent

Head = brain + immediate protective covering + sensor cluster (what scientists call a "face")

Body = brain + full support systems to keep it alive and functioning

Except that "body" isn't really enough. You need "body" + some minimal ecosystem to generate food and re-generate oxygen from carbon dioxide. Could a Biosphere be considered intelligent? In a sense, it's the minimal conglomeration of atoms that is necessary to keep the intelligence going.

"Hmmm, this biosphere is intelligent, but if you peek inside, you will see this semi-autonomous thing in there moving around, that seems to be the truly intelligent thing. And if you look inside that, you will see many organs and systems, but the intelligence again seems to be coming out of that lump of gray matter. And if you look inside that, you will see individual cells exchanging chemical information. But those exchanges themselves are not intelligent per se. We've looked too far in. Back up!"

Invidious · 30th August 2007, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Every intelligence ever observed has been an activity going on in a squishy bit of meat between an animal's ears. We have hypothesised that a silicon-based intelligence might be possible, and it would be an activity going on in a computer.

What we've never seen is an intelligence consisting of a nigh-inconceivably huge expanse of vacuum, with the occasional star or speck of free-falling rock and gas in it.

I've said in the past that it makes as much sense to say the universe is a banana as it does to say the universe is a mind. It's got nothing in common with any mind (or banana) any human has ever encountered.

Yes, but isn't a brain just a huge expanse of empty air, with little meaty atoms and electricity in it? I mean, if we took your brain out and I shot it with my Engorge-O-Ray, and it grew to the size of the universe, what would it look like inside it?

tsg · 30th August 2007, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by Invidious

Yes, but isn't a brain just a huge expanse of empty air, with little meaty atoms and electricity in it? I mean, if we took your brain out and I shot it with my Engorge-O-Ray, and it grew to the size of the universe, what would it look like inside it?

Slippery slope.

Complexity · 30th August 2007, 09:00 AM

Parts of it are. Others are dumb as rocks.

Invidious · 30th August 2007, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by tsg

Slippery slope.

True, and not really a response to the OP. I'm just saying that perhaps the physical similarities are not easily discounted. I can't improve on Loss Leader's question (which I think is excellent and to the point):

Quote:

Do you have any evidence that the purpose of human beings preceded their existence?

To play fair, though, the cell phone doesn't have any evidence of its purpose preceding its existence.

ETA: Except for cell towers, maybe. Although those could have just been natural formations.

Robin · 30th August 2007, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

The guy who invented the cell phone did it with the purpose of making a call.

It's not the fact that cell phones are complex that means they were intelligently designed, it's the fact that their purpose preceded their existence.

Do you have any evidence that the purpose of human beings preceded their existence?

I would agree that purpose is the key difference.

But I am playing woo's advocate here. What if somebody suggested that a "purpose" was just a physical state like any other - so a "purpose" is the physical state causally preceding the act of inventing the phone?

So similarly the smart primate that preceded us on the evolutionary tree was the physical state that causally preceded the emergence of the first human.

Given that an intention does not necessarily translate to action, what is the basic difference?

Jimbo07 · 30th August 2007, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

"Hmmm, this biosphere is intelligent, but if you peek inside, you will see this semi-autonomous thing in there moving around, that seems to be the truly intelligent thing. And if you look inside that, you will see many organs and systems, but the intelligence again seems to be coming out of that lump of gray matter. And if you look inside that, you will see individual cells exchanging chemical information. But those exchanges themselves are not intelligent per se. We've looked too far in. Back up!"

Something like this seems valid. Humans are, by human definition, intelligent. Does that mean the universe is intelligent?

ksbluesfan · 30th August 2007, 10:19 AM

Can there be intelligence without life? As far as we know, there is no life beyond our solar system.

NobbyNobbs · 30th August 2007, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

We consider the brain to be intelligent, though we also consider the head to be so, as well as the body as a whole. Yes, those are three relatively arbitrary dividing lines. Certainly the brain would be the minimum of these, for humans anyway. I suppose you could find large parts of a brain that make up 99% of consciousness and call just that part intelligent.

Brain = minimum conglomeration of "stuff" to be considered intelligent

Head = brain + immediate protective covering + sensor cluster (what scientists call a "face")

Body = brain + full support systems to keep it alive and functioning

Except that "body" isn't really enough. You need "body" + some minimal ecosystem to generate food and re-generate oxygen from carbon dioxide. Could a Biosphere be considered intelligent? In a sense, it's the minimal conglomeration of atoms that is necessary to keep the intelligence going.

"Hmmm, this biosphere is intelligent, but if you peek inside, you will see this semi-autonomous thing in there moving around, that seems to be the truly intelligent thing. And if you look inside that, you will see many organs and systems, but the intelligence again seems to be coming out of that lump of gray matter. And if you look inside that, you will see individual cells exchanging chemical information. But those exchanges themselves are not intelligent per se. We've looked too far in. Back up!"

Wow. That's pretty cool. May I quote you?

Robin · 30th August 2007, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by ksbluesfan

Can there be intelligence without life?

I don't see why not.

Invidious · 30th August 2007, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Robin

I don't see why not.

But would it look like intelligence to us?

tsg · 30th August 2007, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by Robin

I would agree that purpose is the key difference.

But I am playing woo's advocate here. What if somebody suggested that a "purpose" was just a physical state like any other - so a "purpose" is the physical state causally preceding the act of inventing the phone?

This argument only makes sense if desires and intentions are viewed as just another effect of a physical state of matter, specifically the brain. That is, the physical state that caused the result to happen is a "purpose" whether or not any conscious desire was present. If that is the case, then there is no longer any distinction between intelligent and not intelligent, and the assertion that the universe (or anything else) is intelligent ceases to have any meaning.

baron · 30th August 2007, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by ksbluesfan

Can there be intelligence without life? As far as we know, there is no life beyond our solar system.

That's like looking at the tip of a leaf through a microscope and declaring there are no greenfly anywhere on the planet.

In actual fact, that analogy is way too understated, as comparing the solar system to the size of the universe gives a monstrously greater size discrepancy than the tip of a leaf compared to the earth's surface.

Fact is, in terms of life, nobody has a clue what's outside our solar system.

baron · 30th August 2007, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Robin

1. A brain is a physical system that in some cases produces an output like, say, a mobile phone.

2. A universe is a physical system that in some cases produces an output like, say, a human being.

We call the first system (or at least part of it) "intelligent". Is it then reasonable to refer to the second system or any part of the process that results in a human being "intelligent"?

If not, why not?

What do you class as the universe? The universe obviously contains humans and other creatures that are intelligent. However, if you remove them all, together with all other objects, you're left with empty space, which is unlikely to exhibit intelligence.

Or do you mean, is the universe greater than the sum of its parts?

ksbluesfan · 30th August 2007, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by baron

That's like looking at the tip of a leaf through a microscope and declaring there are no greenfly anywhere on the planet.

In actual fact, that analogy is way too understated, as comparing the solar system to the size of the universe gives a monstrously greater size discrepancy than the tip of a leaf compared to the earth's surface.

Fact is, in terms of life, nobody has a clue what's outside our solar system.

In the absence of evidence, it would be mere speculation, and that's my point. The universe appears to be governed by physical laws, not rational decision, which is what "intelligence" implies.

this charming man · 30th August 2007, 12:03 PM

An apple tree is a physical system that produces output. Is it intelligent?

Dancing David · 30th August 2007, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by Robin

1. A brain is a physical system that in some cases produces an output like, say, a mobile phone.

2. A universe is a physical system that in some cases produces an output like, say, a human being.

We call the first system (or at least part of it) "intelligent". Is it then reasonable to refer to the second system or any part of the process that results in a human being "intelligent"?

If not, why not?

I would argue from the start, a phone is not an output of a human brain. it is an object created by a human being with a lot of tools.

The part of intelligence is that it is a behavioral set that we define as intelligent.

In what ways does the universe have behaviors we describe as intelligent?

Dancing David · 30th August 2007, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by ksbluesfan

Can there be intelligence without life? As far as we know, there is no life beyond our solar system.

Great question,

we can only define life through a set of obervable behaviors, we can only define intelluigence through a set of observable behabiors.

First we must define those sets.

Invidious · 30th August 2007, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

The part of intelligence is that it is a behavioral set that we define as intelligent.

Um. What?

Dancing David · 30th August 2007, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by tsg

This argument only makes sense if desires and intentions are viewed as just another effect of a physical state of matter, specifically the brain. That is, the physical state that caused the result to happen is a "purpose" whether or not any conscious desire was present. If that is the case, then there is no longer any distinction between intelligent and not intelligent, and the assertion that the universe (or anything else) is intelligent ceases to have any meaning.

They still have meaning even if they are just exhibited by material beings. Otherwise it is the slippery platonic slope.

ksbluesfan · 30th August 2007, 01:08 PM

Just curious -- why is the question about "a universe"? Is there more than one?

Invidious · 30th August 2007, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by ksbluesfan

Just curious -- why is the question about "a universe"? Is there more than one?

Yes, and the other universes laugh at our universe. Because ours sniffs paint.

tumnus · 30th August 2007, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

Something like this seems valid. Humans are, by human definition, intelligent. Does that mean the universe is intelligent?

In Cosmos, Carl Sagan makes the comment "we are a way for the cosmos to know itself"

I always liked that.

JohnChasWebb · 30th August 2007, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by Robin

1. A brain is a physical system that in some cases produces an output like, say, a mobile phone.

2. A universe is a physical system that in some cases produces an output like, say, a human being.

We call the first system (or at least part of it) "intelligent". Is it then reasonable to refer to the second system or any part of the process that results in a human being "intelligent"?

If not, why not?

The universe expresses intelligence in much the same way that a pencil can express literature.
A human being contains intelligence but may or may not express it or expresses it in varying degrees.
If the universe is in full cooperation with its creator and expresses intelligence then, it seems, that the best course for a human being is to fully cooperate with his or her creator and to merge with the guiding intelligence.

Invidious · 30th August 2007, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by JohnChasWebb

The universe expresses intelligence in much the same way that a pencil can express literature.
A human being contains intelligence but may or may not express it or expresses it in varying degrees.
If the universe is in full cooperation with its creator and expresses intelligence then, it seems, that the best course for a human being is to fully cooperate with his or her creator and to merge with the guiding intelligence.

Um. What? (again)

Invidious · 30th August 2007, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by JohnChasWebb

...the best course for a human being is to fully cooperate with his or her creator and to merge with the guiding intelligence.

And the guiding intelligence is...you? I always thought you'd be, well, shinier or something.

Jimbo07 · 30th August 2007, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by tumnus

I always liked that.

Me too. Also, it doesn't require the universe to have had a purpose...

Elind · 30th August 2007, 02:44 PM

Such consciousness has been speculated many times in different ways. Gaia is one in some views.

While consciousness, self consciousness, is still one of the great mysteries to solve, one can be pretty sure that it involves information flow between different components that do different things with information. Basic computer stuff at the simple level, but even that has been conceived by our great science fiction writers.

There was one book that was interesting, but the name escapes me for now, which speculated that intelligent life, traveling through space in a way we cannot do now, created a sufficiently complex interaction that it (the universe) became self aware in a manner that was independent of the individual beings that carried the information here and there, obviously on a much greater time scale.

That's why it's called science fiction.

T'ai Chi · 30th August 2007, 02:45 PM

if you define intelligence as

'that which is needed to solve a problem'

then there could be intelligence in a lot of places.

If you define it to mean

'a function of a eletric piece of meat'

then you narrow down where it can be found.

Elind · 30th August 2007, 02:55 PM

I didn't say intelligence, I said self consciousness.

ungoliant · 30th August 2007, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by ksbluesfan

Just curious -- why is the question about "a universe"? Is there more than one?

i seem to recall an article about parrallel universes existing in a tube-like structure, moving around like bubbles in soda. it was some theory i was reading, but very speculative. sorry i don't remember more.

as to the OP, i think i need to understand the question better. is the OP referring to "intelligence" or "consciousness"? i think i need a distinction between those two because i personally define them very differently.

is the universe "intelligent" as in IQ or mental capabilities, i don't think we can say. we don't know enough about it. there has been no evidence of it that we have found and interpreted that way, as far as i know.

is the universe "conscious" as in self-aware and alive? same answer.

but as usual, i am always open to new evidence either way.

Invidious · 30th August 2007, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

if you define intelligence as

'that which is needed to solve a problem'

then there could be intelligence in a lot of places.

If you define it to mean

'a function of a eletric piece of meat'

then you narrow down where it can be found.

Okay, I'll play: what is an example of a problem the universe might need to solve?

this charming man · 30th August 2007, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by Invidious

Okay, I'll play: what is an example of a problem the universe might need to solve?

Looks like T'ai has hooked one.
Be gentle T'ai.

Robin · 30th August 2007, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by this charming man

An apple tree is a physical system that produces output. Is it intelligent?

Could it produce a pear?

this charming man · 30th August 2007, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by Robin

Could it produce a pear?

maybe a pair

29th August 2007, 10:52 PM	#1
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	Is a Universe intelligent? 1. A brain is a physical system that in some cases produces an output like, say, a mobile phone. 2. A universe is a physical system that in some cases produces an output like, say, a human being. We call the first system (or at least part of it) "intelligent". Is it then reasonable to refer to the second system or any part of the process that results in a human being "intelligent"? If not, why not?
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541

29th August 2007, 11:05 PM	#2
Loss Leader Opinionated Jerk Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: New York Posts: 11,885	Originally Posted by Robin 1. A brain is a physical system that in some cases produces an output like, say, a mobile phone. 2. A universe is a physical system that in some cases produces an output like, say, a human being. We call the first system (or at least part of it) "intelligent". Is it then reasonable to refer to the second system or any part of the process that results in a human being "intelligent"? If not, why not? The guy who invented the cell phone did it with the purpose of making a call. It's not the fact that cell phones are complex that means they were intelligently designed, it's the fact that their purpose preceded their existence. Do you have any evidence that the purpose of human beings preceded their existence?
	__________________ Follow me on Twitter! @LossLeader This force is receiving all the right to vote through the use of magic. - Miernik Wieslaw <NEW> VOTE FOR ME JUST BECAUSE <NEW>

30th August 2007, 12:29 AM	#3
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,789	This is an interesting question. I sometimes have wondered: since I have this subjective experience called 'consciousness' perhaps other things also have a similar subjective experience. Certainly it seems reasonable to assume that other people have similar states of conciousness. Animals appear to have some sort of conciousness, but we cannot experience the world as they experience it. What is is like, for example, to be a bat and sense the world through sonar? But perhaps conciousness is not necessarily limited to animals? How would we know? There is no device that can detect conciousness. Maybe the universe itself has some sort of conciousness or subjective experience. It is a mystery.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

30th August 2007, 01:58 AM	#4
Kevin_Lowe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Queensland Posts: 10,284	Every intelligence ever observed has been an activity going on in a squishy bit of meat between an animal's ears. We have hypothesised that a silicon-based intelligence might be possible, and it would be an activity going on in a computer. What we've never seen is an intelligence consisting of a nigh-inconceivably huge expanse of vacuum, with the occasional star or speck of free-falling rock and gas in it. I've said in the past that it makes as much sense to say the universe is a banana as it does to say the universe is a mind. It's got nothing in common with any mind (or banana) any human has ever encountered.
	__________________ Thinking is skilled work....People with untrained minds should no more expect to think clearly and logically than people who have never learned and never practiced can expect to find themselves good carpenters, golfers, bridge-players, or pianists. -- Alfred Mander

30th August 2007, 06:58 AM	#6
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	We consider the brain to be intelligent, though we also consider the head to be so, as well as the body as a whole. Yes, those are three relatively arbitrary dividing lines. Certainly the brain would be the minimum of these, for humans anyway. I suppose you could find large parts of a brain that make up 99% of consciousness and call just that part intelligent. Brain = minimum conglomeration of "stuff" to be considered intelligent Head = brain + immediate protective covering + sensor cluster (what scientists call a "face") Body = brain + full support systems to keep it alive and functioning Except that "body" isn't really enough. You need "body" + some minimal ecosystem to generate food and re-generate oxygen from carbon dioxide. Could a Biosphere be considered intelligent? In a sense, it's the minimal conglomeration of atoms that is necessary to keep the intelligence going. "Hmmm, this biosphere is intelligent, but if you peek inside, you will see this semi-autonomous thing in there moving around, that seems to be the truly intelligent thing. And if you look inside that, you will see many organs and systems, but the intelligence again seems to be coming out of that lump of gray matter. And if you look inside that, you will see individual cells exchanging chemical information. But those exchanges themselves are not intelligent per se. We've looked too far in. Back up!"
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

30th August 2007, 06:33 AM	#5
Bob Klase Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Largo, FL Posts: 2,833	Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe EWhat we've never seen is an intelligence consisting of a nigh-inconceivably huge expanse of vacuum, with the occasional star or speck of free-falling rock and gas in it. Except for this blonde that I dated once....

30th August 2007, 07:04 AM	#7
Invidious Thinker Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 184	Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe Every intelligence ever observed has been an activity going on in a squishy bit of meat between an animal's ears. We have hypothesised that a silicon-based intelligence might be possible, and it would be an activity going on in a computer. What we've never seen is an intelligence consisting of a nigh-inconceivably huge expanse of vacuum, with the occasional star or speck of free-falling rock and gas in it. I've said in the past that it makes as much sense to say the universe is a banana as it does to say the universe is a mind. It's got nothing in common with any mind (or banana) any human has ever encountered. Yes, but isn't a brain just a huge expanse of empty air, with little meaty atoms and electricity in it? I mean, if we took your brain out and I shot it with my Engorge-O-Ray, and it grew to the size of the universe, what would it look like inside it?
Invidious Thinker Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 184

30th August 2007, 08:56 AM	#8
tsg Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Location: Location: Posts: 6,771	Originally Posted by Invidious Yes, but isn't a brain just a huge expanse of empty air, with little meaty atoms and electricity in it? I mean, if we took your brain out and I shot it with my Engorge-O-Ray, and it grew to the size of the universe, what would it look like inside it? Slippery slope.
	__________________ Being offended by someone questioning your beliefs is a sign that you should be questioning them. In the beginning there was nothing. And the Lord said "Let There Be Light!" And still there was nothing, but at least now you could see it.

30th August 2007, 09:00 AM	#9
Complexity The Woo Whisperer Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Minnesota, USA Posts: 9,263	Parts of it are. Others are dumb as rocks.
	__________________ "It is a great nuisance that knowledge can only be acquired by hard work." - W. Somerset Maugham "Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible; thought is merciless to privilege, established intuititions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man." - Bertrand Russell

30th August 2007, 09:22 AM	#10
Invidious Thinker Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 184	Originally Posted by tsg Slippery slope. True, and not really a response to the OP. I'm just saying that perhaps the physical similarities are not easily discounted. I can't improve on Loss Leader's question (which I think is excellent and to the point): Quote: Do you have any evidence that the purpose of human beings preceded their existence? To play fair, though, the cell phone doesn't have any evidence of its purpose preceding its existence. ETA: Except for cell towers, maybe. Although those could have just been natural formations.
Invidious Thinker Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 184

30th August 2007, 09:54 AM	#11
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	Originally Posted by Loss Leader The guy who invented the cell phone did it with the purpose of making a call. It's not the fact that cell phones are complex that means they were intelligently designed, it's the fact that their purpose preceded their existence. Do you have any evidence that the purpose of human beings preceded their existence? I would agree that purpose is the key difference. But I am playing woo's advocate here. What if somebody suggested that a "purpose" was just a physical state like any other - so a "purpose" is the physical state causally preceding the act of inventing the phone? So similarly the smart primate that preceded us on the evolutionary tree was the physical state that causally preceded the emergence of the first human. Given that an intention does not necessarily translate to action, what is the basic difference?
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541

30th August 2007, 10:15 AM	#12
Jimbo07 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,419	Originally Posted by Beerina "Hmmm, this biosphere is intelligent, but if you peek inside, you will see this semi-autonomous thing in there moving around, that seems to be the truly intelligent thing. And if you look inside that, you will see many organs and systems, but the intelligence again seems to be coming out of that lump of gray matter. And if you look inside that, you will see individual cells exchanging chemical information. But those exchanges themselves are not intelligent per se. We've looked too far in. Back up!" Something like this seems valid. Humans are, by human definition, intelligent. Does that mean the universe is intelligent?
Jimbo07 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,419	__________________ This post approved by your local jPac (Jimbo07 Political Action Committee), also registered with Jimbo07 as the Jimbo07 Equality Rights Knowledge Betterment Action Group. Atoms in supernova explosion get huge business -- Pixie of key

30th August 2007, 10:19 AM	#13
ksbluesfan Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 1,384	Can there be intelligence without life? As far as we know, there is no life beyond our solar system.

30th August 2007, 10:21 AM	#14
NobbyNobbs Gazerbeam's Protege Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The Mended Drum Posts: 5,630	Originally Posted by Beerina We consider the brain to be intelligent, though we also consider the head to be so, as well as the body as a whole. Yes, those are three relatively arbitrary dividing lines. Certainly the brain would be the minimum of these, for humans anyway. I suppose you could find large parts of a brain that make up 99% of consciousness and call just that part intelligent. Brain = minimum conglomeration of "stuff" to be considered intelligent Head = brain + immediate protective covering + sensor cluster (what scientists call a "face") Body = brain + full support systems to keep it alive and functioning Except that "body" isn't really enough. You need "body" + some minimal ecosystem to generate food and re-generate oxygen from carbon dioxide. Could a Biosphere be considered intelligent? In a sense, it's the minimal conglomeration of atoms that is necessary to keep the intelligence going. "Hmmm, this biosphere is intelligent, but if you peek inside, you will see this semi-autonomous thing in there moving around, that seems to be the truly intelligent thing. And if you look inside that, you will see many organs and systems, but the intelligence again seems to be coming out of that lump of gray matter. And if you look inside that, you will see individual cells exchanging chemical information. But those exchanges themselves are not intelligent per se. We've looked too far in. Back up!" Wow. That's pretty cool. May I quote you?
	__________________ I wish someone would find something I wrote on this board to be sig-worthy, thereby effectively granting me immortality.--Antiquehunter The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted years on earth the time spent eating butterscotch pudding. AMERICA! NUMBER 1 IN PARTICLE PHYSICS SINCE JULY 4TH, 1776!!! --SusanConstant

30th August 2007, 10:29 AM	#15
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	Originally Posted by ksbluesfan Can there be intelligence without life? I don't see why not.
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541

30th August 2007, 10:33 AM	#16
Invidious Thinker Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 184	Originally Posted by Robin I don't see why not. But would it look like intelligence to us?
Invidious Thinker Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 184

30th August 2007, 10:44 AM	#17
tsg Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Location: Location: Posts: 6,771	Originally Posted by Robin I would agree that purpose is the key difference. But I am playing woo's advocate here. What if somebody suggested that a "purpose" was just a physical state like any other - so a "purpose" is the physical state causally preceding the act of inventing the phone? This argument only makes sense if desires and intentions are viewed as just another effect of a physical state of matter, specifically the brain. That is, the physical state that caused the result to happen is a "purpose" whether or not any conscious desire was present. If that is the case, then there is no longer any distinction between intelligent and not intelligent, and the assertion that the universe (or anything else) is intelligent ceases to have any meaning.
	__________________ Being offended by someone questioning your beliefs is a sign that you should be questioning them. In the beginning there was nothing. And the Lord said "Let There Be Light!" And still there was nothing, but at least now you could see it.

30th August 2007, 11:13 AM	#18
baron Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hill Posts: 1,910	Originally Posted by ksbluesfan Can there be intelligence without life? As far as we know, there is no life beyond our solar system. That's like looking at the tip of a leaf through a microscope and declaring there are no greenfly anywhere on the planet. In actual fact, that analogy is way too understated, as comparing the solar system to the size of the universe gives a monstrously greater size discrepancy than the tip of a leaf compared to the earth's surface. Fact is, in terms of life, nobody has a clue what's outside our solar system.
	__________________ Last edited by baron; 30th August 2007 at 11:17 AM.

30th August 2007, 11:16 AM	#19
baron Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hill Posts: 1,910	Originally Posted by Robin 1. A brain is a physical system that in some cases produces an output like, say, a mobile phone. 2. A universe is a physical system that in some cases produces an output like, say, a human being. We call the first system (or at least part of it) "intelligent". Is it then reasonable to refer to the second system or any part of the process that results in a human being "intelligent"? If not, why not? What do you class as the universe? The universe obviously contains humans and other creatures that are intelligent. However, if you remove them all, together with all other objects, you're left with empty space, which is unlikely to exhibit intelligence. Or do you mean, is the universe greater than the sum of its parts?
	__________________

30th August 2007, 11:55 AM	#20
ksbluesfan Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 1,384	Originally Posted by baron That's like looking at the tip of a leaf through a microscope and declaring there are no greenfly anywhere on the planet. In actual fact, that analogy is way too understated, as comparing the solar system to the size of the universe gives a monstrously greater size discrepancy than the tip of a leaf compared to the earth's surface. Fact is, in terms of life, nobody has a clue what's outside our solar system. In the absence of evidence, it would be mere speculation, and that's my point. The universe appears to be governed by physical laws, not rational decision, which is what "intelligence" implies.

30th August 2007, 12:03 PM	#21
this charming man A jumped up pantry boy Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: On a hillside desolate Posts: 1,117	An apple tree is a physical system that produces output. Is it intelligent?
	__________________ Avatar animation by Paulhoff http://southernskeptics.wordpress.com/ http://southernskeptics.net

30th August 2007, 12:20 PM	#22
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,729	Originally Posted by Robin 1. A brain is a physical system that in some cases produces an output like, say, a mobile phone. 2. A universe is a physical system that in some cases produces an output like, say, a human being. We call the first system (or at least part of it) "intelligent". Is it then reasonable to refer to the second system or any part of the process that results in a human being "intelligent"? If not, why not? I would argue from the start, a phone is not an output of a human brain. it is an object created by a human being with a lot of tools. The part of intelligence is that it is a behavioral set that we define as intelligent. In what ways does the universe have behaviors we describe as intelligent?
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

30th August 2007, 12:28 PM	#23
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,729	Originally Posted by ksbluesfan Can there be intelligence without life? As far as we know, there is no life beyond our solar system. Great question, we can only define life through a set of obervable behaviors, we can only define intelluigence through a set of observable behabiors. First we must define those sets.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

30th August 2007, 12:29 PM	#24
Invidious Thinker Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 184	Originally Posted by Dancing David The part of intelligence is that it is a behavioral set that we define as intelligent. Um. What?
Invidious Thinker Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 184

30th August 2007, 12:30 PM	#25
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,729	Originally Posted by tsg This argument only makes sense if desires and intentions are viewed as just another effect of a physical state of matter, specifically the brain. That is, the physical state that caused the result to happen is a "purpose" whether or not any conscious desire was present. If that is the case, then there is no longer any distinction between intelligent and not intelligent, and the assertion that the universe (or anything else) is intelligent ceases to have any meaning. They still have meaning even if they are just exhibited by material beings. Otherwise it is the slippery platonic slope.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

30th August 2007, 01:08 PM	#26
ksbluesfan Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 1,384	Just curious -- why is the question about "a universe"? Is there more than one?

30th August 2007, 01:31 PM	#27
Invidious Thinker Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 184	Originally Posted by ksbluesfan Just curious -- why is the question about "a universe"? Is there more than one? Yes, and the other universes laugh at our universe. Because ours sniffs paint.
Invidious Thinker Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 184

30th August 2007, 02:09 PM	#28
tumnus Scholar Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: The backwards boondocks of Kent, UK Posts: 57	Originally Posted by Jimbo07 Something like this seems valid. Humans are, by human definition, intelligent. Does that mean the universe is intelligent? In Cosmos, Carl Sagan makes the comment "we are a way for the cosmos to know itself" I always liked that.

30th August 2007, 02:22 PM	#29
JohnChasWebb Student Join Date: May 2007 Location: Maui, Hawaii Posts: 32	Originally Posted by Robin 1. A brain is a physical system that in some cases produces an output like, say, a mobile phone. 2. A universe is a physical system that in some cases produces an output like, say, a human being. We call the first system (or at least part of it) "intelligent". Is it then reasonable to refer to the second system or any part of the process that results in a human being "intelligent"? If not, why not? The universe expresses intelligence in much the same way that a pencil can express literature. A human being contains intelligence but may or may not express it or expresses it in varying degrees. If the universe is in full cooperation with its creator and expresses intelligence then, it seems, that the best course for a human being is to fully cooperate with his or her creator and to merge with the guiding intelligence.

30th August 2007, 02:27 PM	#30
Invidious Thinker Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 184	Originally Posted by JohnChasWebb The universe expresses intelligence in much the same way that a pencil can express literature. A human being contains intelligence but may or may not express it or expresses it in varying degrees. If the universe is in full cooperation with its creator and expresses intelligence then, it seems, that the best course for a human being is to fully cooperate with his or her creator and to merge with the guiding intelligence. Um. What? (again)
Invidious Thinker Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 184

30th August 2007, 02:29 PM	#31
Invidious Thinker Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 184	Originally Posted by JohnChasWebb ...the best course for a human being is to fully cooperate with his or her creator and to merge with the guiding intelligence. And the guiding intelligence is...you? I always thought you'd be, well, shinier or something.
Invidious Thinker Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 184	Last edited by Invidious; 30th August 2007 at 02:30 PM. Reason: Spite, mainly.

30th August 2007, 02:36 PM	#32
Jimbo07 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,419	Originally Posted by tumnus I always liked that. Me too. Also, it doesn't require the universe to have had a purpose...
Jimbo07 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,419	__________________ This post approved by your local jPac (Jimbo07 Political Action Committee), also registered with Jimbo07 as the Jimbo07 Equality Rights Knowledge Betterment Action Group. Atoms in supernova explosion get huge business -- Pixie of key

30th August 2007, 02:44 PM	#33
Elind Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Florida Posts: 6,622	Such consciousness has been speculated many times in different ways. Gaia is one in some views. While consciousness, self consciousness, is still one of the great mysteries to solve, one can be pretty sure that it involves information flow between different components that do different things with information. Basic computer stuff at the simple level, but even that has been conceived by our great science fiction writers. There was one book that was interesting, but the name escapes me for now, which speculated that intelligent life, traveling through space in a way we cannot do now, created a sufficiently complex interaction that it (the universe) became self aware in a manner that was independent of the individual beings that carried the information here and there, obviously on a much greater time scale. That's why it's called science fiction.

30th August 2007, 02:45 PM	#34
T'ai Chi Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 11,235	if you define intelligence as 'that which is needed to solve a problem' then there could be intelligence in a lot of places. If you define it to mean 'a function of a eletric piece of meat' then you narrow down where it can be found.
	__________________ http://www.statisticool.com

30th August 2007, 02:55 PM	#35
Elind Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Florida Posts: 6,622	I didn't say intelligence, I said self consciousness.