# The origin of intelligence



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 6, 2013)

What are your thoughts on where intelligence comes from?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> What are your thoughts on where intelligence comes from?



Do you mean in humans or in all creatures?


----------



## 660griz (Dec 6, 2013)

Intelligence, in any form, has a general, ultimate purpose which is survival. In a publication by E.S. Williams on intelligence as a key to survival, it was stated that a man’s intelligence is the dominant attribute by which he survives his environment especially in extreme conditions. Intelligence has also been linked to evolution whereby the conception of  “survival of the fittest” is of prime focus. New studies are now probing into the possibility that intelligence just might be an evolved form of survival strategy.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 6, 2013)

Define intelligence. 

Ability to do complex math, or ability to deduce that since the stove was hot last time, it might be this time?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 6, 2013)

Like G.I. Joe says: Knowing is half the battle.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 6, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Define intelligence.
> 
> Ability to do complex math, or ability to deduce that since the stove was hot last time, it might be this time?



And are we going to use just the earliest of humans as examples because they would be the closest thing to "getting" their intelligence from somewhere or something??

Are we to establish whether or not the earliest humans were "made" smart, and if so lets first establish if we are going to use the Bible's first 2 humans or are we going to go with humans that are outside of the Bible?

The opening question leaves a lot of room that we should tidy up a bit first.


----------



## HawgJawl (Dec 6, 2013)

Genesis 2 &3 (the fall of man) revolves around the command from God to Adam and Eve to remain ignorant and not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 11:1-9 (the story of the Tower of Babel) indicates that God kinda frowns on human intelligence.  

There are many other scriptures that speak negatively about worldly knowledge.  

So, I guess we can rule the God of Abraham out as a source or even an advocate of human intelligence.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 6, 2013)

HawgJawl said:


> So, I guess we can rule the God of Abraham out as a source or even an advocate of human intelligence.



Certainly, religion has had it's hand in intelligence. For some time, if you weren't of the correct religion, you were killed. This made some folks learn from others and become one of the 'correct' religion. Therefor, they survived.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 6, 2013)

Still waiting for the OP to reply with their definition of intelligence.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 6, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Define intelligence.
> 
> Ability to do complex math, or ability to deduce that since the stove was hot last time, it might be this time?



Let's go back to the beginning.  Even prior to evolution if you wish.  Since you brought up math,and it's a great example along with the other natural laws, as to how rational and intelligible the universe is.   How does one explain the regularity, rationality, and intelligence of the laws of nature.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Let's go back to the beginning.  Even prior to evolution if you wish.  Since you brought up math,and it's a great example along with the other natural laws, as to how rational and intelligible the universe is.   How does one explain the regularity, rationality, and intelligence of the laws of nature.



I don't try to. They are the way they are. I only seek in understanding the mechanics of their operation. 

Still waiting for you to define your measure of intelligence in the OP, though.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 6, 2013)

660griz said:


> Certainly, religion has had it's hand in intelligence. For some time, if you weren't of the correct religion, you were killed. This made some folks learn from others and become one of the 'correct' religion. Therefor, they survived.



For the sake of you and Hawg and anyone else I won't bring in religion or the Bible if you guys can refrain from doing the same.  Let's just have a conversation, look at the options and see what we can come up with.  To me the universe appears to have an intelligent designer.  Many skeptic, agnostic and atheist scientist agree with this statement to include Dawkins and Hawkins.  So the appearance of intelligent input on the front end(the beginning) is pretty much without question.  My question is what are ALL of the possibilities that can account for this appearance.  We already know God is one.  What are the others.  Let's list them and talk about them.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> For the sake of you and Hawg and anyone else I won't bring in religion or the Bible if you guys can refrain from doing the same.  Let's just have a conversation, look at the options and see what we can come up with.  To me the universe appears to have an intelligent designer.  Many skeptic, agnostic and atheist scientist agree with this statement to include Dawkins and Hawkins. * So the appearance of intelligent input on the front end(the beginning) is pretty much without question*.  My question is what are ALL of the possibilities that can account for this appearance.  We already know God is one.  What are the others.  Let's list them and talk about them.



You're bringing religion in to it by capitalizing God. 

The Bold underlined statement above just isn't true. You're saying "pretty much" without question. At what point does that occur? 

There are plenty of questions about it, up to and including if it even exists. 

I think there are two options, personally. 

A) An intelligent designer that we have no concept of because, to manipulate the universe as a whole, they would in my mind have to be external to the universe, and thus beyond our ability to observe, interact, or predict.  

B) Random statistical chance in an ever-repeating cycle of Big Bang/Big Crunch- like scenarios. I use Big crunch here just as a way of saying the resetting of conditions to before the big bang, I acknowledge that there is a theory, though less popular and with less evidence, of the same name. 

As far as option B, there are plenty who state current models of particles and random collisions that would suggest that this were impossible. To them I say that we can't accurately predict the weather on a planet we reside on because we don't know the whole picture, it's awfully arrogant of us to think that we could predict a larger system of collisions and interactions with less direct observation and understanding with any more accuracy than we can predict the weather.


----------



## drippin' rock (Dec 6, 2013)

Aliens  ---  We were bred to mine gold.   The aliens hurt the ozone layer to the point they needed gold dust to help filter radiation. They came here, used Bonobo apes and their own DNA and created us.  I assume intelligence came with the package.


----------



## drippin' rock (Dec 6, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Define intelligence.
> 
> Ability to do complex math,



Well, I guess that rules me out.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 6, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> Well, I guess that rules me out.



Define complex


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 6, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You're bringing religion in to it by capitalizing God.
> 
> The Bold underlined statement above just isn't true. You're saying "pretty much" without question. At what point does that occur?
> 
> ...




Give me a break on the capital G.   God is one explanation.  I acknowledged it and asked for others.  If you can't get past that we might as well call it quits here.

I'll stand by the statement that the APPEARANCE of intelligence from the beginning is for he most part agreed upon.  


I can think of at least one more explanation though I don't buy it, but to be fair, it IS an explanation.

C) It's all just an illusion.  There is no reality.  Hokey but again to be fair it has to be recognized.

Any more?


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Give me a break on the capital G.   God is one explanation.  I acknowledged it and asked for others.  If you can't get past that we might as well call it quits here.
> 
> I'll stand by the statement that the APPEARANCE of intelligence from the beginning is for he most part agreed upon.
> 
> ...



I think a lot of the naturalistic scientists that don't want to give in to the notion of anything supernatural, are turning to the panspermia theory.


----------



## HawgJawl (Dec 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'll stand by the statement that the APPEARANCE of intelligence from the beginning is for he most part agreed upon.



It is also an assumption that there was a "beginning".  Some believe that the basic elements have always existed, even if not contained within the cosmos we are currently aware of.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Dec 6, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Define intelligence.
> 
> Ability to do complex math, or ability to deduce that since the stove was hot last time, it might be this time?



Thanks a bunch!  I could have used the hot stove information yesterday - and the day before.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> To me the universe appears to have an intelligent designer.


 If you don't mean god, then what do you mean.  





> Many skeptic, agnostic and atheist scientist agree with this statement to include Dawkins and Hawkins.


 Some don't. Me(although not a scientist)don't agree. 





> So the appearance of intelligent input on the front end(the beginning) is pretty much without question.


 Not without question.  





> My question is what are ALL of the possibilities that can account for this appearance.


Is this a rephrase of the original question? Do you want to know when intelligence began? Like the first thing with a brain? When was the first brain formed?   





> We already know God is one.


 I don't accept that as a possibility.  


> What are the others.  Let's list them and talk about them.


 Billions of years of evolution/adaptation.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Give me a break on the capital G.   God is one explanation.  I acknowledged it and asked for others.  If you can't get past that we might as well call it quits here.
> 
> I'll stand by the statement that the APPEARANCE of intelligence from the beginning is for he most part agreed upon.
> 
> ...



All I'm saying is that your premise in the OP was to leave religion out of it, and capitalization of God indicates a proper name of one being, as well as respect. 

Would you call Zeus God, or god? 

I'm not hung up on it, just pointing out where it could get  sticky since it' conflicts with the premise.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 6, 2013)

oldfella1962 said:


> Thanks a bunch!  I could have used the hot stove information yesterday - and the day before.



I'm here to entertain AND inform!


----------



## hummdaddy (Dec 6, 2013)

INTELLIGENCE comes from Satan and all his evil doings and ways....


----------



## bullethead (Dec 6, 2013)

HawgJawl said:


> It is also an assumption that there was a "beginning".  Some believe that the basic elements have always existed, even if not contained within the cosmos we are currently aware of.



Exactly. No one anywhere is sure that there was a time when there was "nothing". Many use the Big Bang as the start of what we currently have today, and that may be rightly so, but no one knows what existed even one second before that. Logic would dictate that something physical was there to cause the Big Bang. It is more likely than not that elements,matter,particles etc have always been. It is likely possible that time may run out for all life as we know it before we can ever be sure about a small percentage of what physically exists within our own Universe, let alone what existed before our Universe.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 6, 2013)

The key to all of these discussions is that the reality of it all is that nobody knows anything for sure. In here we have some that are fine with that and use available information with substances known to exist to point to a "more likely than not" scenario and there are some that must fill in the blanks with things that are not known to exist anywhere by anyone.
It is like each side filling in a 4ft hole. One shovels in dirt and the other shovels in invisible dirt. Both sides are confident the whole is filled but only one will drive over it.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Exactly. No one anywhere is sure that there was a time when there was "nothing". Many use the Big Bang as the start of what we currently have today, and that may be rightly so, but no one knows what existed even one second before that. Logic would dictate that something physical was there to cause the Big Bang. It is more likely than not that elements,matter,particles etc have always been. It is likely possible that time may run out for all life as we know it before we can ever be sure about a small percentage of what physically exists within our own Universe, let alone what existed before our Universe.



.....can't be created or destroyed....except by magical beings.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Dec 6, 2013)

HawgJawl said:


> Genesis 2 &3 (the fall of man) revolves around the command from God to Adam and Eve to remain ignorant and not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
> 
> Genesis 11:1-9 (the story of the Tower of Babel) indicates that God kinda frowns on human intelligence.
> 
> ...



That's very true.. What we consider intelligence today, I feel is frowned upon by your God. I think we should agree that Jobs is in He11.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 6, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> .....can't be created or destroyed....except by magical beings.



Well that is just it. As smart as some people are and they use every tidbit of available information it is hard to say exactly how things are or were. But the available observable tangible information they use tells us a lot and that information leads to solving large portions of the puzzle. The gaps then are guesses.
Some guesses rely on the discovery of more tangible observable information that will confirm those guesses and make them facts.
Some guesses rely on make believe that use nothing tangible or observable. 
Despite tangible and observable explanations explaining the once thought unexplainable(therefore supernatural) some believers cannot let go of the magical beings.


----------



## drippin' rock (Dec 6, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> That's very true.. What we consider intelligence today, I feel is frowned upon by your God. I think we should agree that Jobs is in He11.



Actually he is in he11 because he was a vegan.  And everybody knows all vegans are atheists.


----------



## drippin' rock (Dec 6, 2013)

I posted a theory on the origin of intelligence in the "Stoned Ape Theory" thread that never gained much traction.  
I think it is as viable as any.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 6, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> I posted a theory on the origin of intelligence in the "Stoned Ape Theory" thread that never gained much traction.
> I think it is as viable as any.



Post a synopsis here? 

I remember a little about that thread, not much, but since it's relevant...


----------



## drippin' rock (Dec 6, 2013)

Apes discovered mushrooms and expanded their minds. Over time things were revealed to them through the mushrooms. This is a rough draft, but hits the main points.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Exactly. No one anywhere is sure that there was a time when there was "nothing". Many use the Big Bang as the start of what we currently have today, and that may be rightly so, but no one knows what existed even one second before that. Logic would dictate that something physical was there to cause the Big Bang. It is more likely than not that elements,matter,particles etc have always been. It is likely possible that time may run out for all life as we know it before we can ever be sure about a small percentage of what physically exists within our own Universe, let alone what existed before our Universe.


I know you remember the Willard thread were a logical argument was given that something physical did not exist before the big bang. I thought you believe energy was the only thing that existed?



ambush80 said:


> .....can't be created or destroyed....except by magical beings.


The 2nd law didn't exist before the big bang. No laws did for that matter.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 6, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> Actually he is in he11 because he was a vegan.  And everybody knows all vegans are atheists.



I hope not, I would like to have a modified vegan diet where I would still eat venison, but no other meat. I'm just not there yet. I have to find more vegan meals that I like.

Are you a vegan?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I know you remember the Willard thread were a logical argument was given that something physical did not exist before the big bang. I thought you believe energy was the only thing that existed?


Energy is my belief. I have since posted links and articles that stated and made very good arguments that there may have never been a time where there was absolutely "nothing". They make a great case for something, matter, energy etc always existing.
Fact is I don't know.




stringmusic said:


> The 2nd law didn't exist before the big bang. No laws did for that matter.


No laws that pertained to us....what DID exist and what laws they followed may have been the same as ours now. We don't know anything about the pre-Big Bang.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 6, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> Apes discovered mushrooms and expanded their minds. Over time things were revealed to them through the mushrooms. This is a rough draft, but hits the main points.



I could see that happening, like some of our best ideas, as humans, occurring in dream states.


----------



## drippin' rock (Dec 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I hope not, I would like to have a modified vegan diet where I would still eat venison, but no other meat. I'm just not there yet. I have to find more vegan meals that I like.
> 
> Are you a vegan?



Have been for 3 years now. Became one for health reasons. I have toyed with the idea of allowing some personal caught fish and maybe some venison back into my diet, but haven't lost the all the weight I want yet.   And I was kidding about the atheist thing of course. 

Back to the mind expanding stuff, I read somewhere, can't remember where, that Jobs credited his ability to come up with the technology he did with the use of LSD.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I hope not, I would like to have a modified vegan diet where I would still eat venison, but no other meat. I'm just not there yet. I have to find more vegan meals that I like.
> 
> Are you a vegan?



I thought veganism was a pure refusal to use anything made of, or derived from an animal.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 6, 2013)

There is extremely solid evidence of Fire having a huge role in the development of our brains.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> There is extremely solid evidence of Fire having a huge role in the development of our brains.



Yep, the rapid increase in protein in our diets as a result of fire, if I remember my classes on that.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 6, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> Have been for 3 years now. Became one for health reasons. I have toyed with the idea of allowing some personal caught fish and maybe some venison back into my diet, but haven't lost the all the weight I want yet.   And I was kidding about the atheist thing of course.



Cool, I'll bet you feel great! I have been doing some research on eating truly healthy foods and it has me going in that direction.


----------



## drippin' rock (Dec 6, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I thought veganism was a pure refusal to use anything made of, or derived from an animal.



Yeah, that's right. I guess I am not one under that definition, I still wear leather products. More accurately I follow a whole foods, plant based diet. 

Which by the way has not made me better at complex math.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 6, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I thought veganism was a pure refusal to use anything made of, or derived from an animal.



Yea, I would take the same approach as DR, I would look at it from a purely dietary perspective.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 6, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yep, the rapid increase in protein in our diets as a result of fire, if I remember my classes on that.



Yes. Increased proteins being able to be broken down and absorbed easier coupled with Fire allowing us to be more social.....allowed our brains to develop in ways that other mammals did not.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 6, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> Yeah, that's right. I guess I am not one under that definition, I still wear leather products. More accurately I follow a whole foods, plant based diet.
> 
> Which by the way has not made me better at complex math.



I like how whole foods, that require no modification or other intervention by man, cost more than foods heavily modified, or created out of thin air, by man. 

There's a reason our population is getting fatter. Bad food is cheaper than good food.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 6, 2013)

Sorry for the derail SFD.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Yes. Increased proteins being able to be broken down and absorbed easier coupled with Fire allowed us to be more social.....allowed our brains to develop in ways that other mammals did not.



It's still a wonder to me that the first "person" picked up fire, from unknown source, and domesticated it. The found out how to replicate it. 

It's amazing. 

Like the first person to take an egg, cook it, and eat it. Brave people, if you ask me.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 6, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It's still a wonder to me that the first "person" picked up fire, from unknown source, and domesticated it. The found out how to replicate it.
> 
> It's amazing.
> 
> Like the first person to take an egg, cook it, and eat it. Brave people, if you ask me.



Yessir!
I'm speculating it was almost by accident and or necessity. Food may have fallen in the fire and a starving person/family/clan may have needed to get it out and eat it. Probably liked the taste and shared.
The first people to eat mushrooms and oysters and such were brave indeed, probably starving.
 An Old Timer told me one time "you can eat anything once, some things more than that".


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Yessir!
> I'm speculating it was almost by accident and or necessity. Food may have fallen in the fire and a starving person/family/clan may have needed to get it out and eat it. Probably liked the taste and shared.
> The first people to eat mushrooms and oysters and such were brave indeed, probably starving.
> An Old Timer told me one time "you can eat anything once, some things more than that".



Probably someone picking a carcass clean out of a recent wildfire suddenly realizing that it's awesome. And if the fire happened in a cedar forest, watch out! Even better.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 6, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Probably someone picking a carcass clean out of a recent wildfire suddenly realizing that it's awesome. And if the fire happened in a cedar forest, watch out! Even better.



Easily a likely scenario


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I think a lot of the naturalistic scientists that don't want to give in to the notion of anything supernatural, are turning to the panspermia theory.



That's true but that only kicks the can down the road unless I misunderstand it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 6, 2013)

HawgJawl said:


> It is also an assumption that there was a "beginning".  Some believe that the basic elements have always existed, even if not contained within the cosmos we are currently aware of.



Honestly, does that have any bearing what so ever on what we observe appearing as if there was intelligent input.  If you don't want to address the topic at hand feel free to start another thread of your choosing.  It's a bit frustrating to try to have a semi reasonable conversation on a topic when every word and every concept is challenged.  If you don't think the universe appears rational and understandable say so and move along.  What I'm attempting to have is a conversation between those who do and then a discussion as to why.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 6, 2013)

660griz said:


> If you don't mean god, then what do you mean.   Some don't. Me(although not a scientist)don't agree.  Not without question.  Is this a rephrase of the original question? Do you want to know when intelligence began? Like the first thing with a brain? When was the first brain formed?    I don't accept that as a possibility.
> Billions of years of evolution/adaptation.



Pointless


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 6, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> All I'm saying is that your premise in the OP was to leave religion out of it, and capitalization of God indicates a proper name of one being, as well as respect.
> 
> Would you call Zeus God, or god?
> 
> I'm not hung up on it, just pointing out where it could get  sticky since it' conflicts with the premise.



No.  I'm speaking of God only as one explanation of the source of the initial intelligent input.  I'm asking for others such as you provided in your previous post.  I would like for us to posit all we can think of and discuss each.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 6, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> I posted a theory on the origin of intelligence in the "Stoned Ape Theory" thread that never gained much traction.
> I think it is as viable as any.



By the looks of it this thread is going to go the same route.
I actually find it very fascinating that we have a universe that is understandable, abides by laws that we can comprehend.  Even evolution, while I have serious reservations about some of the conclusions that are drawn from the available evidence, I will readily admit that the natural law that govern nature and Darwinism espouses is rational, orderly, and understandable as opposed to being irrational, chaotic, and incomprehensible.  In other words it's intelligible.  My question regarding all of this is what accounts for this intelligibility?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Energy is my belief. I have since posted links and articles that stated and made very good arguments that there may have never been a time where there was absolutely "nothing". They make a great case for something, matter, energy etc always existing.
> Fact is I don't know.
> 
> 
> ...



OK Bullet.  Your posit energy.  Fair enough, but blind, raw, unguided energy would not seem to account for the order that we see in the universe.  It would need to be channeled or guided by some process to account for the order.  What is that process and what accounts for it?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 6, 2013)

What Law addresses spirits living on a plane outside of this understandable, Law abiding, comprehensible, rational and intelligent Universe?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> OK Bullet.  Your posit energy.  Fair enough, but blind, raw, unguided energy would not seem to account for the order that we see in the universe.  It would need to be channeled or guided by some process to account for the order.  What is that process and what accounts for it?



Short answer, honest answer, I don't know.
I cannot in good conscience agree that the Universe is in any sort of order.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 6, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You're bringing religion in to it by capitalizing God.
> 
> The Bold underlined statement above just isn't true. You're saying "pretty much" without question. At what point does that occur?
> 
> ...



Is B another name for the multiverse theory, or something different?  I'm a bit sketchy on most of that stuff.  I'm vaguely familiar with the multiverse and string theories, but vaguely may even be a stretch.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Is B another name for the multiverse theory, or something different?  I'm a bit sketchy on most of that stuff.  I'm vaguely familiar with the multiverse and string theories, but vaguely may even be a stretch.



(B) is a theory about our current Universe that is expanding to a point where it can no longer expand then contracting to a point where it condenses, compacts, explodes and starts the process all over again. Big Bang, Big Crunch, Big Bang, Big Crunch.....


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> (B) is a theory about our current Universe that is expanding to a point where it can no longer expand then contracting to a point where it condenses, compacts, explodes and starts the process all over again. Big Bang, Big Crunch, Big Bang, Big Crunch.....



It's unfathomable to imagine how long something like that could have been going on or how many permutations were formed.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Short answer, honest answer, I don't know.
> I cannot in good conscience agree that the Universe is in any sort of order.



But it is, at least to the point we can understand a great deal about it.  We can plot trajectories of planets, understand that gravity is so strong it can even prevent light from escaping black holes, send men to the moon and get them back.  None of that would be possible unless we could not only understand that order, but reproduce much of it.  Think about it.  The entire field of science is based on the supposition that nature exhibits order.  If nature was not orderly, there would be no such thing as science.  You can't study what is by definition completely chaotic, irrational and unintelligible.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 6, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> It's unfathomable to imagine how long something like that could have been going on or how many permutations were formed.



It is unfathomable to imagine just our own planets birth, existence, transformations and current state......putting all that to the magnitude of the Universe, then having it repeated in every unknowable configuration is....well...yeah...I don't even know how to explain my feelings on that!!! I'll go with unfathomableX2!


----------



## swampstalker24 (Dec 6, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> I posted a theory on the origin of intelligence in the "Stoned Ape Theory" thread that never gained much traction.
> I think it is as viable as any.



I think the stoned ape theory would be a better fit at explaining the origins of culture, not intelligence.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> But it is, at least to the point we can understand a great deal about it.  We can plot trajectories of planets, understand that gravity is so strong it can even prevent light from escaping black holes, send men to the moon and get them back.  None of that would be possible unless we could not only understand that order, but reproduce much of it.  Think about it.  The entire field of science is based on the supposition that nature exhibits order.  If nature was not orderly, there would be no such thing as science.  You can't study what is by definition completely chaotic, irrational and unintelligible.



Yes. To a point I agree.
We have put together Laws that through repeatable tests and observation we use as a "standard". So far it has been enough to allow us to do the things you have described. We are unsure if those things hold up elsewhere in the unobservable Universe.
If these are the laws we have set forth, and also the Laws you are using to make your point, how do we then come to the conclusion that something must exist outside of these Laws and outside of the Universe which governs these Laws?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> (B) is a theory about our current Universe that is expanding to a point where it can no longer expand then contracting to a point where it condenses, compacts, explodes and starts the process all over again. Big Bang, Big Crunch, Big Bang, Big Crunch.....



OK.  Gotcha.  Well if that is the case I would have to think that statistically speaking the multiverse theory would better explain the existence of an orderly universe well before a serial bang crunch, bang crunch theory simply due to odds.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> how do we then come to the conclusion that something must exist outside of these Laws and outside of the Universe which governs these Laws?



You don't, but the options are limited.  So far we have 

God

Chance via crunch bang, multiverse, etc

It's all an illusion.  

Does anyone have any more suggestions?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 6, 2013)

Science Reference
Blog
 Save  Email  Print  Share
The evolution of human intelligence

The nature and origins of hominid intelligence is a much-studied and much-debated topic, of natural interest to humans as the most successful and intelligent hominid species.
See also:
Mind & Brain

    Intelligence
    Psychology

Plants & Animals

    Evolutionary Biology
    Nature

Fossils & Ruins

    Evolution
    Charles Darwin

There is no universally accepted definition of intelligence, one definition is "the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend ideas and language, and learn." The evolution of hominid intelligence can be traced over its course for the past 10 million years, and attributed to specific environmental challenges.

It is a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, however, to see this as a necessary process, and an even greater misunderstanding to see it as one directed to a particular outcome.

There are primate species which have not evolved any greater degree of intelligence than they had 10 million years ago: this is because their particular environment has not demanded this particular adaptation of them.

Intelligence as an adaptation to the challenge of natural selection is no better or worse than any other adaptation, such as the speed of the cheetah or the venomous bite of the cobra.

It is, however, the only adaptation which has allowed a species to establish complete domination over the rest of the natural world.

Whether our species has yet acquired sufficient intelligence to manage this responsibility is a matter for debate.

For more information about the topic The evolution of human intelligence, read the full article at Wikipedia.org, or see the following related articles:


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Science Reference
> Blog
> Save  Email  Print  Share
> The evolution of human intelligence
> ...



Not sure what you are relating this to.  You didn't comment on it.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You don't, but the options are limited.  So far we have
> 
> God
> 
> ...



The suggestions are endless but we won't be able to cover them in here. We cannot with any accuracy take a handful of them in here and solve anything.
I think figuring out human intelligence is going to be a daunting task. I honestly feel that in no way can we even begin to go beyond that.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Not sure what you are relating this to.  You didn't comment on it.



Just throwing it out there to shed some light on human intelligence.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 6, 2013)

Not gonna bombard the thread with large copy/pastes but this is a decent link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence


----------



## bullethead (Dec 6, 2013)

0430 is gonna get here soon so I have to be intelligent enough to hit the sack and not let those whitetails outsmart me.
Good night all....


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> how do we then come to the conclusion that something must exist outside of these Laws and outside of the Universe which governs these Laws?



More to the point I guess would be, why are these laws intelligent, but they are.  Many rest on complicated mathematical equations that took people of the likes of Einstein, Newton, and Pascal years upon years to formulate and understand.  Even today only the brightest of the brightest can discuss them casually as you and I would discuss fish bait.  That's how intelligent,intricate and precise these laws that govern the universe are.  Somehow that was input or programmed into the system prior to the beginning.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Just throwing it out there to shed some light on human intelligence.



oh.  Ok.  I agree, it is daunting, but these are questions that we can ask based on what we do know.  You say the list is endless.  I can't think of any other explanations that don't fall under one of the three we have already.  Not saying there aren't any, but I can't think of any.  If you got more, post them.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> 0430 is gonna get here soon so I have to be intelligent enough to hit the sack and not let those whitetails outsmart me.
> Good night all....



Appreciate the discussion.  I'm not hunting in the morning.  Had a virus that came out of no where today.  Not sure Ill be recovered by the morning.  Also this heat wave in December has taken the edge off of my deer fever.  Feels like September out there, Mosquitos and all.  Good luck and don't tell me if you kill something.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> More to the point I guess would be, why are these laws intelligent, but they are.  Many rest on complicated mathematical equations that took people of the likes of Einstein, Newton, and Pascal years upon years to formulate and understand.  Even today only the brightest of the brightest can discuss them casually as you and I would discuss fish bait.  That's how intelligent,intricate and precise these laws that govern the universe are.  Somehow that was input or programmed into the system prior to the beginning.





SemperFiDawg said:


> More to the point I guess would be, why are these laws intelligent, but they are.  Many rest on complicated mathematical equations that took people of the likes of Einstein, Newton, and Pascal years upon years to formulate and understand.  Even today only the brightest of the brightest can discuss them casually as you and I would discuss fish bait.  That's how intelligent,intricate and precise these laws that govern the universe are.  Somehow that was input or programmed into the system prior to the beginning.



Even more to the point would be to give examples of intelligent Laws and explain why the Laws are intelligent.

I am not so sure everything in the Universe is so clear cut and precise. I think the greatest minds on Earth have figured out ways for humans to explain things in terms we can use here on Earth that fit the understanding of our species. I am not so sure they are universal and understandable across the Universe.
I do not believe anything was input or programmed from a beginning.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 7, 2013)

Example of new discovery not following along in the law and order dept.
http://news.yahoo.com/giant-alien-planet-discovered-most-distant-orbit-ever-171737130.html


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Even more to the point would be to give examples of intelligent Laws and explain why the Laws are intelligent.
> 
> I am not so sure everything in the Universe is so clear cut and precise. I think the greatest minds on Earth have figured out ways for humans to explain things in terms we can use here on Earth that fit the understanding of our species. I am not so sure they are universal and understandable across the Universe.
> I do not believe anything was input or programmed from a beginning.



If the intelligence of the theory of relativity, the law of gravity, etc aren't self evident to you it's a waste of time for us to discuss the whys thereof.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 9, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Pointless



Trying to understand what you are talking about? Agreed.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> If the intelligence of the theory of relativity, the law of gravity, etc aren't self evident to you it's a waste of time for us to discuss the whys thereof.



Intelligent are the people that have figured it out.
Forces attracting one another is not "intelligent". Mass is not "intelligent". Being able to jump up in the air on a moving train and landing on the same spot instead of 3ft back is not intelligent.
Figuring out why is intelligent.

Can you explain how gravity is intelligent?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 9, 2013)

Like I said bullet, that's a different argument altogether.  This thread is for the discussion of various explanations as to WHY there is the appearance of intelligent input, not IF there is.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Like I said bullet, that's a different argument altogether.  This thread is for the discussion of various explanations as to WHY there is the appearance of intelligent input, not IF there is.



If I am not mistaken I thought the conversation was geared towards the "intelligence" behind creating an "intelligent" Universe.....IE: the "Input"

Outside of humans figuring some things out.....where is there any other "input"?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 9, 2013)

bullethead said:


> If I am not mistaken I thought the conversation was geared towards the "intelligence" behind creating an "intelligent" Universe.....IE: the "Input"
> 
> Outside of humans figuring some things out.....where is there any other "input"?



Like I said bullet.  It's  pointless for you to continue here if you deny the assumption of the OP.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Like I said bullet.  It's  pointless for you to continue here if you deny the assumption of the OP.



Did you miss my posts that address the OP directly?

My latest posts are in reply to the direction you have taken it.

If you are bowing out I understand.
3/3


----------



## Ridge Walker (Dec 9, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> This thread is for the discussion of various explanations as to WHY there is the appearance of intelligent input, not IF there is.



It may appear that way to you, but certainly not to everybody else.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 9, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Is B another name for the multiverse theory, or something different?  I'm a bit sketchy on most of that stuff.  I'm vaguely familiar with the multiverse and string theories, but vaguely may even be a stretch.



No, multiverse is something tangential to what I'm saying. 

Think of an inflating balloon, now take away the person blowing into it, it reduces to its non-inflated state. 

Now, instead of a balloon, do this with the universe. 

The Big Bang starts with a singularity and expands to the universe. The Big Crunch starts with a universe and ends with a singularity, upon which a new Big Bang occurs. 

It's been examined, researched, and been found to not fit the current observed state of the universe, in that we're exponentially increasing in the rate of our expansion, but I don't _*believe*_ that just because we don't observe something right now means that it never could happen. 

I interpret the apparent exponential expansion, evidenced by galaxies twice as far away as another observed galaxy moving twice as fast away from us, and so on for 3x's, 4x's, as a potential artifact that the universe actually slowing down since those galaxies closest to us have more timely observations than those further away due to the limitations of our observations being based on the speed of light. 

In other words, since the closer you get to our observational position you also get close to a 1x increase, therefore no increase, in expansion velocity that the older measurements being faster means that we are slowing down. 

Like I've said, since we can't accurately predict the weather on our home planet, it's awfully arrogant to think that we could accurately predict the evolution of BB's and BC's and my interpretation of the data I know about means nothing to anyone but me.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 9, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> No, multiverse is something tangential to what I'm saying.
> 
> Think of an inflating balloon, now take away the person blowing into it, it reduces to its non-inflated state.
> 
> ...



My first thought is that if you toss out the rate of expansion as fixed, well isn't that what a young earth creationist argue?   But that's a trail I don't want to go down, so let's not.  

I think I'm following you so far, but I can't make the jump as to why it would account for the intelligibility of the Universe.  If anything, it, at least on the face of it, would seem to introduce more chaos as it would take away the static rate of expansion that, and correct me if I'm wrong, the models are built upon.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 10, 2013)

Quantum mechanics shows that "nothing" does not exist. There are always quantized particle fields with random fluctuations. Since there were particle fields, there would have been subatomic particles.

Quantum mechanics also shows that events can occur with no cause.

There are many well-respected physicists, such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Victor Stenger, Michio Kaku, Alan Guth, Alex Vilenkin, Robert A.J. Matthews, and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek, who have created scientific models where the Big Bang and thus the entire universe could arise from nothing but a random quantum vacuum fluctuation in a particle field -- via natural processes.

In relativity, gravity is negative energy, and matter and photons are positive energy. Because negative and positive energy seem to be equal in absolute total value, our observable universe appears balanced to the sum of zero. Our universe could thus have come into existence without violating conservation of mass and energy — with the matter of the universe condensing out of the positive energy as the universe cooled, and gravity created from the negative energy.

I know that this doesn't make sense in our Newtonian experience, but it does in the physics of quantum mechanics and relativity. As Nobel laureate physicist Richard Feynman wrote, "The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as she is — absurd."

For more about the Big Bang and its implications, watch the video at the 1st link - "A Universe From Nothing" by theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss, read an interview with him (at the 2nd link), or get his new book (at the 3rd link). See the 4th link for "The Universe: Big Bang to Now in 10 Easy Steps." And, see the 5th link for "Quantum scientists make something out of nothing."

"The total energy of the universe is precisely zero, because gravity can have negative energy. The negative energy of gravity balances out the positive energy of matter. Only such a universe can begin from nothing. The laws of physics allow a universe to begin from nothing. You don't need a deity. Quantum fluctuations can produce a universe."
- Lawrence Krauss, physicist
Source(s):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EilZ4VY5...
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/every...
http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-T...
http://www.space.com/13320-big-bang-univ...
http://tinyurl.com/agfvch8


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 13, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Quantum mechanics shows that "nothing" does not exist. There are always quantized particle fields with random fluctuations. Since there were particle fields, there would have been subatomic particles.
> 
> Quantum mechanics also shows that events can occur with no cause.
> 
> ...



This addresses a different subject altogether.  The subject isn't where did the universe come from, but why does it appear intelligent.  You already stated that you don't think it does.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> This addresses a different subject altogether.  The subject isn't where did the universe come from, but why does it appear intelligent.  You already stated that you don't think it does.



It addresses why the Universe does not appear intelligent because it shows that nothing intelligent had to have a hand in the design. IE: The post was adding backbone to why I think the Universe is not intelligent.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 14, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Quantum mechanics shows that "nothing" does not exist. There are always quantized particle fields with random fluctuations.



Why?

Isn't that where we get the notion of intelligence in creation?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 14, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Why?
> 
> Isn't that where we get the notion of intelligence in creation?



I think it shows that there doesn't have to be a "why".  Anything else is for "feeling good".

I wanted to take the "blue pill" so much the other day.  I really wanted things to make sense.  Problem is, once you take the "red pill" then you know better.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 14, 2013)

bullethead said:


> It addresses why the Universe does not appear intelligent.



 Exactly, and again is not within the context of the OP.  And again I will ask that if you want to discuss that then start another thread, but leave it out of this one.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 14, 2013)

The origin of what we define as intelligence as opposed to its antonyme is DNA or chromosome organization.

As predators we have some unique genetic organization which give us unique traits, like no muscle mass on the top of the head and  a beard( facial hair) for male humans which we exchange for the loss of a bone which exists in all other predators. The brain of a coyote for example is expert at assessment via the nose. The brain of humans is expert at twidling tumbs, and selling stuff. The area of assessement assimilations and processing is just different.

I suppose it could be said that all living things have intelligence and according to our assessment as humans there are different levels of it. Generally it is determined by genetics. And in humans alone it is determined mostly by genetics as well, but there are the exceptions. High IQ folk tend to come from high IQ parents-- but not always.

And once more anyone who has spent a little time on a trap line or hunting different critters and picking berries knows this kind of stuff... Are you buying it? Would you buy that fish and fishing on the other hand have very little to teach us about our selves other than our remarkable capacity to sell and buy  lures?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> What are your thoughts on where intelligence comes from?



THIS is the OP is it not?

Did you forget to include "our" IE: HUMAN intelligence or are you talking about intelligence in general?

The way this OP is worded leaves the door wide open SFD.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> My first thought is that if you toss out the rate of expansion as fixed, well isn't that what a young earth creationist argue?   But that's a trail I don't want to go down, so let's not.
> 
> I think I'm following you so far, but I can't make the jump as to why it would account for the intelligibility of the Universe.  If anything, it, at least on the face of it, would seem to introduce more chaos as it would take away the static rate of expansion that, and correct me if I'm wrong, the models are built upon.



 So THIS post about the Universe is within the realm of the OP and my post about the Universe is not.....??


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 18, 2013)

In his book "The Goldilocks Enigma"  Paul Davies speaking on the subject of the book says this:

“The existence of laws of nature is the starting point of this book, and indeed it is the starting point of science itself. But right at the outset we encounter an obvious and profound enigma:
*Where do the laws of nature come from?*
As I have remarked, Galileo, Newton, and their contemporaries regarded the laws as thoughts in the mind of God, and their elegant mathematical form as a manifestation of God's rational plan for the universe. Few scientists today would describe the laws of nature using such quaint language. Yet the questions remain of what these laws are and why they have the form that they do. If they aren't the product of divine providence, how can they be explained?”

Excerpt From: Davies, Paul. “Goldilocks Engima.” Houghton Mifflin Harcourt


----------



## 660griz (Dec 18, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> But right at the outset we encounter an obvious and profound enigma:
> *Where do the laws of nature come from?*



What is your definition of "laws of nature"? Just want to be clear before I give an answer. Obviously the other answers that have been shared were not accepted so, I assume we are using the wrong understanding of laws of nature.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 18, 2013)

In the conclusion of his book he list 8 possible answers to the above question.

“A. The Absurd Universe

This is probably the majority position among scientists. According to this point of view, the universe is as it is, mysteriously “and it just happens to permit life. It could have been otherwise, but what we see is what we get. Had it been different, we would not be here to argue about it. The universe may or may not have a deep underlying unity, but there is no design, purpose, or point to it all—at least none that would make sense to us. There is no God, no designer, no teleological principle, no destiny. Life in general, and human beings in particular, are an irrelevant embellishment in a vast and meaningless cosmos, the existence of which is an unfathomable mystery.
The advantage of this position is that it is easy to hold—easy to the point of being a cop-out. If there is no deeper meaning or scheme, there is no point in searching for one. In particular, there is no point in seeking links between life, mind, and cosmos: according to this view, there is no connection, apart from the trivial one that life has emerged from the cosmos and mind has emerged from life, purely by accident. The disadvantage of the absurd universe view is that science cannot be expected to uncover new and deeper  “layers of order or further connections between natural phenomena. If there is no coherent scheme of things, then the success of the scientific enterprise to date is rendered totally enigmatic, and science can be pursued only with a completely unjustified faith that the methods used hitherto will continue to uncover reasonlessly existing order beneath the surface appearance of things. The fact that life exists, seemingly against vast odds, is attributed to an extraordinary accident. And appealing to luck, like appealing to miracles, is not a very satisfactory explanation. That life has evolved mind has to be accepted as another stupendous accident of history. The fact that some minds are capable of understanding the universe is likewise either dismissed as yet another fluke, or tied to vague notions that brains have evolved to recognize patterns, and that—again for no reason—the deep patterns of physics and cosmology resemble the patterns of the everyday world on our planet (which in fact they mostly don't).”

Excerpt From: Davies, Paul. “Goldilocks Engima.” Houghton Mifflin Harcourt


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 18, 2013)

“B. The Unique Universe

This point of view holds that there is a deep underlying unity in physics, and there is a mathematical theory "out there" that will pull it all together if only we are smart enough to formulate it. It could be string/M theory or something else. Whatever it is, it will turn out to be founded on a profound mathematical principle that leaves no room for adjustment. All the laws of physics, all the parameters in the Standard Model, the various constants of nature, the existence of space and time with three and one dimensions respectively, the origin of the universe, quantum mechanics, relativistic spacetime and its causal properties—the whole shebang—will follow inexorably and inevitably from this final unified theory. It will truly be a theory of everything.
In the extreme version of this position, call it B1, the universe must exist necessarily as it is; it could not have been otherwise. There is a unique, self-consistent description of physical reality. If there is a God, then this being will have nothing to do, apart from perhaps "breathing fire into the “equations," because there are no choices to be made, no free parameters, no room for design. In the less extreme version of this position, B2, the universe could have been otherwise: there could be many unified theories describing different self-consistent realities, but the one being sought is simply the one that works, for no reason that can be discerned. To that extent, the existence of this particular universe is either a mystery or it is absurd because there is no reason why this rather than that self-consistent reality is "the one." This point of view (B2) seems to be held by most physicists working on the unification program and other aspects of fundamental physics, such as high-energy physics.
The advantage of the unique universe position is that it holds out the dream of a complete understanding of physical existence. Nothing is left unexplained; nothing of a fundamental nature is arbitrary or the result of chance, or needs fixing by an unknown designer. If there can be only one universe (B1), then the final theory would represent the greatest triumph of the human intellect. We would finally know the reason for existence: it had to be like this (or not exist at all). The disadvantage of B2 is that, although a parameter-free unified theory that does the job would be in our possession, the ultimate question of "why that theory?" could remain unexplained. Most scientists would, I think, settle for that—for not knowing the answer to the ultimate question of existence. They would proclaim, "It's a mystery!" and move on to something else. A disadvantage of both B1 and B2 is that the bio-friendliness of the universe is shrugged aside as an insignificant coincidence. Because the theory fixes everything, it is unexpected good fortune that this fix turns out to be consistent with life and mind (not to mention understanding).”


----------



## TripleXBullies (Dec 18, 2013)

Which is no different than the other obvious question that you so easily write off all because he said so... Where did your God come from??



SemperFiDawg said:


> In his book "The Goldilocks Enigma"  Paul Davies speaking on the subject of the book says this:
> 
> “The existence of laws of nature is the starting point of this book, and indeed it is the starting point of science itself. But right at the outset we encounter an obvious and profound enigma:
> *Where do the laws of nature come from?*
> ...


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 18, 2013)

“C. The Multiverse

A minority of scientists, but a growing one, now support the multiverse theory in one version or another. Modern cosmological models point strongly to the existence of a multiplicity of cosmic domains (for example, bubble universes, pocket universes, variegated cosmic regions) as a natural and generic feature in which the big bang that gave birth to our universe is but one of many (probably an infinite number of) bangs generating a multiplicity of "universes." In addition, many theories that seek to unify physics predict some sort of variability in at least some of the constants of nature—parameters that enter into the Standard Model of particle physics—and in some of these theories there is variation in the form of the laws of low-energy physics too, opening the way for them to vary from one cosmic domain to another as the universes cool from their melting-pot origins. The favored unification model, or models, known as string/ M theory, seems to entail a "landscape" of vastly many possible low-energy universes, with nothing obvious to single out a special one.
The advantage of the multiverse theory is that it provides a natural and easy explanation “of why the universe is so uncannily fine-tuned for life: observers arise only in those universes where, like Goldilocks' porridge, things are by accident "just right." Bio-hostile universes overwhelmingly proliferate, but “they are by definition sterile, so they go unseen. The disadvantage of the multiverse theory is that it invokes an overabundance of entities, most of which could never be observed, even in principle. This profligacy strikes many people as an extravagant way to explain bio-friendliness. The theory is also very hard to test. Observers are treated simply as selection agents, so the mysterious comprehensibility of the universe (to the human mind at least) is left unexplained. The multiverse does not provide a complete account of existence because it still requires a lot of unexplained and very "convenient" physics to make it work. For example, there has to be a universe-generating mechanism, quantum mechanics has to describe everything, and unified laws of some sort (such as those that arise from string/M theory) have to be simply accepted as "given." So the multiverse, at least in this "mild" form, lacks the power of B1 (the unique universe), although it is no worse than B2. Some sort of ingenious selection still has to be made, not of a universe but of a multiverse. The problem of existence has therefore not gone away, but only been shifted up one level.”

“The last criticism is avoided by the extreme multiverse model proposed by Max Tegmark in which all possible worlds of any description really exist, not just those flowing from a specific mathematical model such as string/M theory and inflation. The advantage of the extreme multiverse is that it explains everything because it contains everything. This has the virtue of simplicity and "naturalness," but the huge disadvantage of appearing rather vacuous. A theory that can explain anything at all really explains nothing. However, a multiverse “that contains less than everything implies a rule that separates what exists from what is possible but does not exist. The rule remains unexplained. Another disadvantage of all multiverse theories is that they seem to lead to the prediction of fake universes that (at least on a simple counting basis) outnumber the real ones, leading to the bizarre conclusion that the observed universe is probably a fake, and so its physics cannot be taken seriously anyway.
Multiverse proponents get sniped at from both sides. Religious adherents regard the theory as a frantic attempt to dodge any sort of god: "the last resort for the desperate atheist," in the words of the philosopher Neil Manson.2 String/M theory purists, on the other hand, see it as a weak-kneed abdication of professional responsibility in the face of mathematical difficulties.”


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 18, 2013)

“D. Intelligent Design

The traditional monotheistic religious view is that the universe is created by God and designed to be suitable for life because the emergence of sentient beings is part of God's plan. This has the advantage of being a simple explanation of the cosmic fine-tuning and bio-friendliness and of being a "natural" explanation for those people who have already decided on other grounds that God exists. It also attributes the designlike qualities of the universe to a designer, which seems reasonable enough. However, it suffers from the obvious disadvantage of being a conversation stopper. The simple declaration “God did it!" provides no actual explanation for anything, unless one can also say how and why God did it. It also runs into the problem of who designed the designer, unless the notion of a necessary being can be firmly established and shown to be different from, and superior to, a necessary universe (in the sense of B1).
The other main problem with intelligent design is that the identity of the designer need bear no relation at all to the God of traditional monotheism. The "designing agency" can be a committee of gods, for example. The designer can also be a natural being or beings, such as an evolved supermind or supercivilization existing in a previous universe, or in another region of our universe, which made our universe using supertechnology. The designer can also be some sort of superdupercomputer simulating this universe. So invoking a superintellect as the levitating super-turtle is fraught with problems.”


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 18, 2013)

“E. The Life Principle

In this theory, the bio-friendliness of the universe arises from an overarching law or principle that constrains the universe/multiverse to evolve toward life and mind. It has the advantage of "taking life seriously," treating it neither as a completely unexplained bonus, as in A and B, nor as a mere passive selector, as in C. It avoids the "gerrymandering" feel of D, replacing a manipulative (natural or supernatural) god with a more subtle, purposelike principle. In short, it builds purpose “into the workings of the cosmos at a fundamental (rather than an incidental) level, without positing an unexplained preexisting agent to inject purpose miraculously.
The disadvantage is that teleology represents a decisive break with traditional scientific thinking, in which goal-oriented or directional evolution is eschewed as antiscientific. Critics ask how the universe "knows" about life in order to contrive its eventual emergence. This raises the problem of causation, both of how to accommodate an additional life principle in a system of physical laws that is already supposed to do the job of explaining everything, and also the weirdness of backward-in-time causation, or backward-in-time something. As I have explained, these may not be fatal flaws, but they certainly make scientists nervous. Atheistic scientists regard any talk of directional principles as a cover for the guiding hand of God being slipped back into science, even if it is a “far cry from the God of traditional monotheism. A life principle also suffers from the problem of singling out life and mind as the "aim" of cosmic evolution, without explaining why. One could just as well nominate any distinctive and complex state of matter and enshrine its emergence in a teleological principle. So the life principle itself must just be accepted as a brute fact, along with the laws of physics, existing without any explanation. This objection is readily removed if one combines a teleological principle with the multiverse, because only universes with life principles built into their laws get a chance to be observed. But invoking the multiverse merely transfers the problem of where the life principle came from to the problem of where the multiverse came from.”

Excerpt From: Davies, Paul. “Goldilocks Engima.” Houghton Mifflin Harcourt


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 18, 2013)

“F. The Self-Explaining Universe

All the foregoing options hit the tower-of-turtles problem, with the exception of B1, the Tegmark version of the multiverse (under C), and the existence of a necessary God (under D). Something unexplained has to be accepted as given and the rest of the explanatory scheme constructed on that ad hoc foundation. One way to avoid this trap is to appeal to a closed explanatory or causal loop. In effect, the universe (or multiverse—it can work at both levels) explains itself. There are even models involving causal loops or backward-in-time causation, whereby the universe creates itself. The advantage of such a scheme is that it is self-contained and avoids both the infinite regress of the tower of turtles and the act of faith involved in invoking a levitating super-turtle. The disadvantage is that we are still left not knowing why this universe “this self-explaining, self-creating system—is the one that exists, as opposed to all other self-explanatory schemes. Perhaps all self-explanatory schemes exist and only ones like ours get observed because they are consistent with life—another variant on the multiverse. Or, better still, perhaps existence isn't something that gets bestowed from outside, by having "fire breathed" into a potentiality by some unexplained fire-breathing agency (that is, a transcendent existence generator) but is also something self-activating. I have suggested that only self-consistent loops capable of understanding themselves can create themselves, so that only universes with (at least the potential for) life and mind really exist.”


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 18, 2013)

“G. -The Fake Universe

We are living in a simulation, and what we take to be the real world is an ingeniously contrived virtual reality show. This is a variant on the Intelligent Designer scenario but upgraded for the information age. This theory enjoys the same easy-fix advantages as intelligent design but has the distinct disadvantage of undermining the scientific quest. If the universe is a sham, why bother to figure out how it works?”

Excerpt From: Davies, Paul. “Goldilocks Engima.” Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (www.hmhco.com).


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 18, 2013)

“H.-None of Above."


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 18, 2013)

660griz said:


> What is your definition of "laws of nature"? Just want to be clear before I give an answer. Obviously the other answers that have been shared were not accepted so, I assume we are using the wrong understanding of laws of nature.



Griz, he doesn't give a formal definition, but this is what he is talking about, again from his book:

“The ancients were right: beneath the surface complexity of nature lies a hidden subtext, written in a subtle mathematical code. This cosmic code contains the secret rules on which the universe runs. Newton, Galileo, and other early scientists treated their investigations as a religious quest. They thought that by exposing the patterns woven into the processes of nature they truly were glimpsing the mind of God. *Modern scientists are mostly not religious, yet they still accept that an intelligible script underlies the workings of nature, for to believe otherwise would undermine the very motivation for doing research, which is to uncover something meaningful about the world that we don't already knowO*.”


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 18, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Which is no different than the other obvious question that you so easily write off all because he said so... Where did your God come from??



TXB.  I'm not going to respond to any off topic sniping.  If you don't care to engage in an intelligent discussion on the topic at hand then you can take your memes on down the road.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 18, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> “The ancients were right: beneath the surface complexity of nature lies a hidden subtext, written in a subtle mathematical code. This cosmic code contains the secret rules on which the universe runs.


 Some rules are broken. We observe nature and take it as it is. 





> Newton, Galileo, and other early scientists treated their investigations as a religious quest.


 They had better or we wouldn't be reading much about them today. 





> They thought that by exposing the patterns woven into the processes of nature they truly were glimpsing the mind of God.


 Sad but, you have to remember the time they were in. They were trying to better translate the bible and/or not be killed. 





> Modern scientists are mostly not religious, yet they still accept that an intelligible script underlies the workings of nature, for to believe otherwise would undermine the very motivation for doing research, which is to uncover something meaningful about the world that we don't already know.”


If there was an intelligible script that underlies the workings of nature...just read the thing and be done with it. The motivation to uncover something we don't know comes from not knowing and wanting to know.

Where did intelligence come from? Well, evolution and luck. Luckily, right after the big bang, there was more matter than anti-matter or we wouldn't be having this dicsussion. 

You are looking at this like, there has to be a God, cause everything follows the rules of nature. 
I look at it like, if there was a God, we wouldn't have laws of nature. Nothing would make sense. Why would a God have to make something that followed laws of nature? We shouldn't be able to explain why we don't fly off the earth. Why have a day and night? Why does 'most' everything fit into a web of life? Did God have to obey the laws of nature when he made the earth? If so, wouldn't laws of nature be more powerful than God? Why do we have a heart and lungs and brain and need oxygen? 
Shouldn't all or most of the stuff that God does be miraculous and unexplanable. I mean, if he came down and turned the ocean into wine would scientist be able to tell how he did that? No. He could turn a rock into a fish. No explaination. Why do we have to multiply? Couldn't he just add more as needed? Doesn't, no explanation, usually equate to, God did it? 
It seems that when that doesn't work, now we are saying God created laws which he must obey. Just doesn't add up. 

Originally, God was going to make a woman from Adam's arm and leg. Adam was not fond of that idea and asked what he could get for a rib.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Dec 18, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> TXB.  I'm not going to respond to any off topic sniping.  If you don't care to engage in an intelligent discussion on the topic at hand then you can take your memes on down the road.



It was a response to your response. You led it there. And in fact, you did respond. Now I am responding to your sniped response.

This also isn't your notable quote thread... why are you filling it up with quotes?


----------



## HawgJawl (Dec 18, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> What are your thoughts on where intelligence comes from?





HawgJawl said:


> It is also an assumption that there was a "beginning".  Some believe that the basic elements have always existed, even if not contained within the cosmos we are currently aware of.





SemperFiDawg said:


> Honestly, does that have any bearing what so ever on what we observe appearing as if there was intelligent input.  If you don't want to address the topic at hand feel free to start another thread of your choosing.  It's a bit frustrating to try to have a semi reasonable conversation on a topic when every word and every concept is challenged.  If you don't think the universe appears rational and understandable say so and move along.  What I'm attempting to have is a conversation between those who do and then a discussion as to why.



The question of where something comes from is based upon the assumption that it had a beginning.  When we speak of something eternal, the question of where it came from has no meaning because the eternal thing has always been. 

My thoughts on where intelligence comes from is that it has always been.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 18, 2013)

660griz said:


> Where did intelligence come from? Well, evolution and luck. Luckily, right after the big bang, there was more matter than anti-matter or we wouldn't be having this dicsussion.



The intellect he is speaking of predates the origin of the universe, much less evolution.  He's speaking of the rationally intelligible laws that were in place at the moment of the Big Bang and guided the expansion of the universe to the state it now exists.



660griz said:


> You are looking at this like, there has to be a God, cause everything follows the rules of nature.



I'm specifically NOT looking at JUST the ID model.  I posted Davies summary of each model so everyone could read them and speak on them.  If I was only interested in the ID model I would have posted on it alone.  Can you get past the fact that I'm a Christian and discuss the various models that Davies offers?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 18, 2013)

HawgJawl said:


> The question of where something comes from is based upon the assumption that it had a beginning.  When we speak of something eternal, the question of where it came from has no meaning because the eternal thing has always been.
> 
> My thoughts on where intelligence comes from is that it has always been.



Again Hawg, while I agree with your summation and I think I know where your are going with it, it's a totally different topic altogether.  If you would like to discuss it in another thread I would be very interested in it.  It seems many on here are also interested, judging by the numerous attempts to shift the topic of this thread to that of origin.


----------



## HawgJawl (Dec 18, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Again Hawg, while I agree with your summation and I think I know where your are going with it, it's a totally different topic altogether.  If you would like to discuss it in another thread I would be very interested in it.  It seems many on here are also interested, judging by the numerous attempts to shift the topic of this thread to that of origin.



Sorry, I interpreted "comes from" as having to do with origin.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 18, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Again Hawg, while I agree with your summation and I think I know where your are going with it, it's a totally different topic altogether.  If you would like to discuss it in another thread I would be very interested in it.  It seems many on here are also interested, judging by the numerous attempts to shift the topic of this thread to that of origin.



The title of the thread isn't "The origin of intelligence," after all?


----------



## 660griz (Dec 18, 2013)

The original question was "What are your thoughts on where intelligence comes from?", I answered that and then the topic shifts. I had a class in college where they asked for my thoughts and I got it wrong. I dropped that class.


----------



## HawgJawl (Dec 18, 2013)

I considered following his advice and starting my own thread about the origin of the pink bath robe that Zeus wears.  

I would be clear that I do not want to discuss whether or not Zeus actually wears a pink bath robe or if Zeus even exists.  The only thing I want to discuss is where Zeus was when he obtained the bath robe.  I don't want to discuss where the bath robe originated, just where Zeus obtained the bath robe.  If someone says that Zeus always had it, I'll remind them that they are way off topic because that does not address where Zeus obtained the pink bath robe.

I decided against starting that thread because I was afraid no one would have anything to post.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 18, 2013)

SFD will not respond to any off topic stuff, especially to me when I talked about intelligence within the Universe, he made it a point to tell me it was Off Topic.....he then follows up with an A-H copy and paste about intelligence within the Universe.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 18, 2013)

HawgJawl said:


> I considered following his advice and starting my own thread about the origin of the pink bath robe that Zeus wears.
> 
> I would be clear that I do not want to discuss whether or not Zeus actually wears a pink bath robe or if Zeus even exists.  The only thing I want to discuss is where Zeus was when he obtained the bath robe.  I don't want to discuss where the bath robe originated, just where Zeus obtained the bath robe.  If someone says that Zeus always had it, I'll remind them that they are way off topic because that does not address where Zeus obtained the pink bath robe.
> 
> I decided against starting that thread because I was afraid no one would have anything to post.



Seriously, 100% spot on!


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 18, 2013)

SFD wants everybody to concede that there is design.No No:


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 18, 2013)

660griz said:


> the original question was "what are your thoughts on where intelligence comes from?", i answered that and then the topic shifts. I had a class in college where they asked for my thoughts and i got it wrong. I dropped that class.





> i dropped that class


bingo!


----------



## drippin' rock (Dec 18, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Again Hawg, while I agree with your summation and I think I know where your are going with it, it's a totally different topic altogether.  If you would like to discuss it in another thread I would be very interested in it.  It seems many on here are also interested, judging by the numerous attempts to shift the topic of this thread to that of origin.



SFD, are you OCD???  If there is one thing you post more than boring apologist quotes, it is posts reminding people to stay on topic.

So what if it goes of topic?  If we were standing in a group talking, the conversation would naturally shift and flow and twist and turn.  Would you remind us to stay on topic then?  Would you have many friends?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 18, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> SFD wants everybody to concede that there is design.No No:



When you eliminate everything except what you want to talk about, then dictate how you want THAT talked about, and then somehow think the conversation is going your way...........


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 18, 2013)

I asked to discuss the origin of intelligence then tried to specify in relation to the laws of nature.  As Davies points out modern scientist accept an intelligible script underlies the workings of nature.

So far the intelligibility has been denied, that even an origin exists at all has been denied, origin of intelligibility has been equated with origin of the universe (two totally separate topics), and one poster even stated that the "why" of the intelligibility wasn't important.  No one however has even came close to discussing the actual topic, namely what accounts for the intelligibility of the universe.  That's why I posted all of the possible options that Davies notes in his book.  Davies is a Agnostic/Skeptic and only one of his eight options posits God.   The other seven are basically atheistic explanations or theories that don't need a designer to account for the intelligibility of the universe, and yet apparently no one here subscribes to those either.  If they do, they have yet to begin a discussion of them.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 18, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> SFD, are you OCD???  If there is one thing you post more than boring apologist quotes, it is posts reminding people to stay on topic.



Honestly thought we could have a good discussion on the pros and cons of the various explanations as to the intelligibility of the universe, especially after I spoon fed 6 atheistic theories into the thread.  Apparently the terms "intelligibility" and "intelligent" smack so much of God that our A/As here can't even bring themselves to acknowledge "intelligent" conversation exists much less become a party to it.

 It's a slippery slope you know.  Once you allow yourself to start intelligently discussing the "appearance" of intelligence, before you know it you are seeing intelligence all around you, then maybe even within yourself.  Next thing you know you have forsaken all that is unintelligible and are down at the creek getting baptized.  Scary stuff; that intelligence.  Best to avoid the topic altogether.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Dec 19, 2013)

The thread is about the origin of intelligence... Here you go talking about intelligibility... OFF TOPIC! I REFUSED TO RESPOND!



SemperFiDawg said:


> I asked to discuss the origin of intelligence then tried to specify in relation to the laws of nature.  As Davies points out modern scientist accept an intelligible script underlies the workings of nature.
> 
> So far the intelligibility has been denied, that even an origin exists at all has been denied, origin of intelligibility has been equated with origin of the universe (two totally separate topics), and one poster even stated that the "why" of the intelligibility wasn't important.  No one however has even came close to discussing the actual topic, namely what accounts for the intelligibility of the universe.  That's why I posted all of the possible options that Davies notes in his book.  Davies is a Agnostic/Skeptic and only one of his eight options posits God.   The other seven are basically atheistic explanations or theories that don't need a designer to account for the intelligibility of the universe, and yet apparently no one here subscribes to those either.  If they do, they have yet to begin a discussion of them.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 19, 2013)

gordon 2 said:


> The more I read this tread the more I seem to think I understand that christians and atheists have different definitions of intelligence and proofs, because their realities literally are different.
> 
> Both parties seeing an onion for example each has a mental gynastic of it so different as to make their ideas of origins, intelligence and reality opposites.
> 
> ...


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Honestly thought we could have a good discussion on the pros and cons of the various explanations as to the intelligibility of the universe, especially after I spoon fed 6 atheistic theories into the thread.  Apparently the terms "intelligibility" and "intelligent" smack so much of God that our A/As here can't even bring themselves to acknowledge "intelligent" conversation exists much less become a party to it.
> 
> It's a slippery slope you know.  Once you allow yourself to start intelligently discussing the "appearance" of intelligence, before you know it you are seeing intelligence all around you, then maybe even within yourself.  Next thing you know you have forsaken all that is unintelligible and are down at the creek getting baptized.  Scary stuff; that intelligence.  Best to avoid the topic altogether.



Pride cometh before the fall. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## Bow Only (Dec 19, 2013)

Without reading all those posts, I believe intelligence originated from that fact that we began eating protein and it changed our intestinal flora and this allowed the bacteria to influence us more than before.  We have more bacteria inside us than we have human cells, so a different presence of bacteria would elicit different internal results.  In our case, it allowed higher thinking.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> What are your thoughts on where intelligence comes from?



Original Post ^


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 19, 2013)

gordon 2 said:


> The more I read this tread the more I seem to think I understand that christians and atheists have different definitions of intelligence and proofs, because their realities literally are different.
> 
> Both parties seeing an onion for example each has a mental gymnastic of it so different as to make their ideas of origins, intelligence and reality opposites.
> 
> ...



Gordon I would really like to discuss this further, but I can't do it here or else I'm gonna be labeled a hypocrite for allowing a believer to go off topic.  Will you please start a thread on this in one of the above forums and let's discuss it there?


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Gordon I would really like to discuss this further, but I can't do it here or else I'm gonna be labeled a hypocrite for allowing a believer to go off topic.  Will you please start a thread on this in one of the above forums and let's discuss it there?



Ok. I understand. Sorry mate. Have at it. Peace. I rubbled my post out. So you can rub your post to me out as well. GBU


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 19, 2013)

gordon 2 said:


> The more I read this tread the more I seem to think I understand that christians and atheists have different definitions of intelligence and proofs, because their realities literally are different.
> 
> Both parties seeing an onion for example each has a mental gymnastic of it so different as to make their ideas of origins, intelligence and reality opposites.
> 
> ...





> Also, did you ever notice many athiests are generally young and see the negative in christian belief and christians who are engaged in their faith are generally more positive and more advanced in age compared to the first group. Maybe. maybe not. Maybe on age demographics alone our brains are really wired differently.


You added this part after I responded the first time and would like to comment.
Isnt that the natural progression throughout history on many different subjects? Rock&roll, slavery, couples living together, gay rights, driving gas guzzling Cadillacs and on and on. Its always been that way and likely always will.
And I think there is a lot of truth/fact to our brains being "wired" differently. Its part of what makes people different from each other.


----------



## 1222DANO (Dec 19, 2013)

660Griz knows its what he's saying in the article,

the intelligence like he said come from the natural instinct of survival.
You take a kid who raises himself compared to a kid that has had all handed to him..
the kid that raised himself knows the most basic concepts of how things work, how to feed himself,etc, and usually he doesn't wanna complicate further because of the unknown..

the kid that had been taken care of now he never thinks about the basics of life he just knows their there and have to be done. this is fine in a money motivated society this kid will suceed. take away money and put it back to survival and this kid will struggle. he doesn't know the basics. no matter how hard he'll never understand.


----------

